Home
DiaryArticlesBooksBiographyContact
| |
January 26, 2004The cannabis catastropheDaily Mail, January 26 2003 As David Blunkett contemplates the chaos and fury triggered by his decision to downgrade the law on cannabis, he could do worse than consider the case of Dominique Lansdowne. Eleven years ago, when she was 18, the former care assistant from Swindon started smoking cannabis once a week. ‘After a couple of weeks, I found it was addictive’, she said. ‘As soon as you start you get the feeling you’re completely relaxed and calm, but then you crave it. I used it more and more until I was smoking it every day. Then I couldn’t work because I was too stoned all the time. I was so paranoid I couldn’t leave the house. ‘I haven’t worked for the past six years. I lost all my friends and nearly lost my family. I couldn’t afford to pay my mortgage, my house was repossessed, I had to live in a hostel. I was in hospital three times, and couldn’t cope at all in the community. I had no social skills left. My life was in tatters. I didn’t stop completely until two years ago. ‘I still take anti-psychotics, antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs, and will probably have to take medication for the rest of my life. I’m positive cannabis was the cause; I became paranoid as soon as I started smoking it. I’ve known hundreds of people who smoke it; all of them have some kind of paranoia or a problem, whether they recognise it or not.’ All of which makes it truly extraordinary that this Thursday, cannabis will be downgraded from a class B to a class C drug. The Home Secretary’s move has delighted the drug legalisers — but astonished and horrified those like Dominique, who know the truth about its effects. Tory leader Michael Howard has boldly declared that a future Conservative government will reverse the policy. Yet Mr Blunkett’s so called ‘reform’ has already caused many people mistakenly to believe cannabis is now legal or safe to use. Despite ministers’ desperate insistence that it remains illegal and dangerous, putting cannabis in the same category as slimming pills, painkillers, tranquillisers and anabolic steroids sends the inescapable signal that it is not very dangerous after all. Dominique Lansdowne knows what nonsense this is. Before she used cannabis, she had not even smoked tobacco; afterwards she also tried speed, LSD and ecstasy. ‘I would never have touched hard drugs if I hadn’t taken cannabis. Reclassification is really dreadful and sad because the government is saying cannabis isn’t that bad and so people are going to take it thinking it’s not going to do them any harm.’ Dominique is not alone in her concerns. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens says there is a ‘massive amount of muddle‘ surrounding the reclassification. The British Medical Association has expressed alarm that the move is sending out the wrong message. Panicked by the backlash, the Home Office has rushed out leaflets to tell the public cannabis is still illegal and dangerous. But it has been badly wrongfooted by recent scientific evidence suggesting that Dominique Lansdowne’s experience is now horrifyingly commonplace. Many people associate pot with the flower-power sixties. But since then, it has become at least ten times stronger, with the most toxic varieties such as ‘skunk’ or home-grown marijuana becoming increasingly popular. According to some psychiatrists, this increase in strength along with rising use has produced an explosion of cannabis users displaying psychotic symptoms such as schizophrenia, paranoia or manic depression. Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry says cannabis is now the ‘number one problem facing the mental health services in inner cities.’ In south London where he is a psychiatrist at the Maudsley hospital, he says the incidence of psychosis has doubled since 1964. Dr Paddy Power, a psychiatrist at Lambeth hospital in south London, has said cannabis is a factor behind 70 to 80 per cent of psychosis cases. Like Professor Murray, Dr Power has emphasised that psychosis is caused by several factors including genetics, early brain problems or birth trauma. ‘If you add cannabis, then you have a dangerous mix’, he says. In fact, there has long been evidence that cannabis is associated with mental illness. Some claimed, however, that it wasn’t clear whether cannabis caused people to become mentally ill or whether such people were already ill when they turned to the drug. Now, Professor Murray says a number of recent studies have proved beyond any doubt that cannabis is a cause of mental illness. Yet the government dismisses such concerns on the basis that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which advised it to reclassify cannabis, has said its view remains unchanged. When asked about these recent studies the Advisory Council’s chairman, Sir Michael Rawlins, flatly denied that they showed cannabis caused psychosis. ‘They only show an association’, he said. Yet the studies themselves say in terms that cannabis is a cause of psychosis in people who were not previously ill. A 1987 study of Swedish army conscripts found 18 year-olds who had used cannabis on more than 50 occasions were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia 15 years later. Recently, the study was reviewed — and the researchers arrived at the same result, which they said was ‘consistent with a causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia’. Two other studies backed this up. New Zealand researchers, who showed that cannabis users at 15 and 18 had higher rates of psychotic symptoms at age 26, concluded: ‘Using cannabis in adolescence increases the likelihood of experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia in adulthood.’ And a Dutch study, which showed that cannabis users were three times more likely to show psychotic symptoms than those who didn’t use the drug, stated: ‘Cannabis use is an independent risk factor for the emergence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons. These studies were published in the British Medical Journal in November 2002, a few months after the Advisory Council made its recommendation — although it says it was aware of some of them before it reported. According to Sir Michael Rawlins, no research showing cause and effect has been published since that date. Yet this is not so either. Another New Zealand study published last year showed that psychotic symptoms occurred in 18 year-old cannabis addicts almost four times as frequently and among 21 year-old addicts more than twice as frequently as non-users It concluded that ‘heavy cannabis use may make a causal contribution to the development of psychotic symptoms.’ It is remarkable that the chairman of the scientific committee on whose evidence the government has relied appears to be unaware of what this evidence actually says. Other supporters of the downgrading also dismiss such studies and insist that psychotic symptoms are rare. Dame Ruth Runciman chaired the crucial Police Foundation committee, which in 2000 first sparked the whole controversy by recommending reclassification. She said she had seen no evidence that large numbers of psychotic patients were ‘streaming in’ because they had taken cannabis. ‘What I understand from psychiatrists’, she said, ‘is that cannabis can cause schizophrenia in people with an underlying disposition, but that this risk is lower than it is with crack cocaine or alcohol. Yet when pressed, Dame Ruth was forced to admit that she had read none of these studies — even though she chairs a large London mental health trust. According to Professor John Henry, an expert in accident and emergency medicine, Dame Ruth is simply wrong. ‘There is no evidence that alcohol or crack cocaine can precipitate schizophrenia’, he said. ‘From the point of view of schizophrenia, cannabis is worse than heroin or cocaine, which at least don’t cause you to lose your mind’. Sir Michael Rawlins dismisses the claim that cannabis is now a major cause of madness, and insists: ‘Cannabis psychosis is very rare indeed. There is no evidence that emergency admissions to psychiatric units predominantly involve cannabis use. In Newcastle, where I run a unit for drug intoxication, I don’t recall having had one of them’. Yet Professor Heather Ashton, arguably Britain’s leading expert on cannabis, worked in the drug and poisons information unit at Newcastle Royal Infirmary for 15 years and says she saw such patients all the time. ‘I saw patient after patient admitted with psychosis due to cannabis’, she said. ‘They didn’t go to Michael Rawlins’s clinic; they were admitted to the psychiatric wards, and they were absolutely raving. ‘Mental hospitals were regularly seeing people with acute cannabis psychosis. The writing was absolutely on the wall’. Indeed, she gave evidence about this and other cannabis ill-effects to the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and the House of Lords. Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the schizophrenia charity SANE, said she had tried to point out the strong links between cannabis and psychosis for the past 15 years. ‘Any practising psychiatrist was very well aware of this, as were most families and other observers, but the psychiatric profession just gave a collective shrug. ‘We have 1000 calls per week on our helpline of which 36 per cent are from psychotics. Among all those young men I have interviewed on the helpline, with only one or two exceptions cannabis was involved. There is no such link with alcohol, heroin or cocaine’. One reason why cannabis is not thought to be as dangerous as heroin or cocaine is that it is said no-one actually dies from it. Two weeks ago, however, a coroner ruled that 36 year-old Lee Maisey, who smoked half a dozen joints a day, did die from cannabis poisoning. The father-of-one, from Summerhill, near Swansea, had been a cannabis user for more than a decade. Experts have blamed his death on the new super-strength varieties. But the drug’s documented ill-effects are not limited to psychosis or death. They are far more pervasive. In evidence to a Commons committee, biology teacher Mary Brett, from Amersham in Buckinghamshire, observed: ‘Cannabis users assume a different identity. They become passive, inflexible and rigid in thought. Since they never question their actions they're unable to change. They cannot take criticism and feel misunderstood. Trying to talk sense to users becomes a futile exercise.’ Teachers say they can spot the cannabis users in their class when once lively pupils suddenly become disengaged and lethargic. ‘I can see the boys who are using cannabis’, said Melanie Burnett, another biology teacher. ‘The grades go down; the work gets handed in late or doesn’t get done. The kids don’t seem to care. They think it’s legal and no worse than alcohol or tobacco.’ But there is considerable evidence is that it has a range of harmful effects which put it on a different level. One researcher estimates that it takes 1,000 times more alcohol to produce the same disabling effects on the brain as marijuana. Specific cannabis receptors in the brain mean that the drug particularly affects logical thought, reasoning, judgment and memory, sensory perception, co-ordination and the production of emotions including pleasure. After the ‘high’, users may experience anxiety and panic, paranoid feelings, depersonalisation, loss of control, flashbacks, depression and mood swings. Withdrawal symptoms -- experienced by around a quarter of users -- include restlessness, anxiety, irritability, aggression, insomnia and depression. Moreover, because it is stored in fatty tissue cannabis stays in the system for weeks and its ill-effects mount up. Dr Nadia Solowij, an Australian researcher, said in 1998 that using cannabis more than twice per week for even a short period of time, or using it for five years or more just once per month, may damage a user’s mental capacity. So even so-called light users are at risk — and such damage may be long-lasting. Research shows memory loss can persist for six weeks after stopping using cannabis, and attention deficit may persist at least two years after stopping. The fact that its effects last so long makes it particularly lethal if users drive, fly planes or use dangerous machinery. Many studies have implicated it in road and rail accidents. And it can be addictive. Researchers estimate that dependence among regular users runs at between 9 and 17 per cent. Studies in the US and Australia show about 10 per cent of those who ever use it become daily users, and 20-30 per cent use it weekly. It is also a ‘gateway’ to other drugs. Research shows that cannabis users are 28 times more likely than non-users to depend on other illegal drugs, and those who use cannabis on at least 50 occasions in a year are 60 times more likely than non-users to take other drugs. And then there is the violence. Jamie Lee Osbourne, jailed for life last December for murdering a stranger at random, changed under the influence of cannabis from a church-going teenager to a savage killer. His barrister told the court that cannabis had diminished his inhibitions and given him ‘delusional fantasies’. Phillip Caswell, jailed the same month, who strangled his sleeping girlfriend and then stabbed her repeatedly with a kitchen knife, blamed the attack on his prolonged cannabis use. A Swedish study confirmed there were three times as many suicides and homicides among cannabis users than among those where no trace of the drug was found in the body. In another study in New Zealand of 1000 young men, 34 per cent who were cannabis users had convictions for violence or had reported violent behaviour in the previous year – five times higher the rate of violence in the general population. Sir Michael Rawlins still insists that cannabis is no more dangerous than other class C drugs. ‘All the ill-effects ascribed to cannabis can be found with other class C drugs’, he said. ‘Anabolic steroids, for example, can cause psychosis, tranquillisers can cause dependence’. But Professor Ashton says such comparisons are grossly misleading. ‘Other class C drugs are legally prescribed by doctors who control their dose and their duration. All drugs have potential ill effects and these have to be measured against the benefits if patients are ill. This is quite different from cannabis, where people are not ill, the dose is uncontrolled and very many more people are using it and doing themselves harm.’ Many people think cannabis is relatively harmless because of the suggestion that it might help relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. But it is not cannabis but its component cannabinoids that are being tested for therapeutic effects, trials which have so far produced mixed results. The claim that cannabis is no more dangerous than painkillers is regarded with astonishment and horror in Brixton, in the south London borough of Lambeth — the area used for Commander Brian Paddick’s ‘softly-softly’ cannabis policing experiment. According to Chris Andre-Watson, a Brixton pastor, cannabis is now a pervasive part of youth culture. ‘It’s anaesthetised a generation of youngsters’, he says. ‘It’s produced a generation of young men who have had their will to live taken away. They’ve become soporific, they’ve lost any drive, any ambition. ‘People who are well off may use it to chill out at the weekend. Kids here don’t have that luxury. If you feel powerless and everyone is out to get you, it reinforces that. It also disinhibits them; it takes away their sense of morality or the consequences of their actions. The link with mental illness is patently obvious. It infuriates me to hear people say it’s not proven; it’s as if their souls have been taken away.’ Clearly, people who have first hand experience of coping with the harm caused by cannabis are horrified by the downgrading of its status in law, which they are certain will lead to more drug use and more damage to individuals and society. So how can such a potentially disastrous move have come about? Tomorrow, I will show how a dedicated network of drug-legalisers helped set Mr Blunkett on his woefully misguided course. Posted by melanie
at January 26, 2004 10:23 AM Comments
Mealanie This is a very powerful case. It's quite amazing how Blunkett has been taken in. Holding one of the highest offices in the land, this man has lost control of immigration, crime and now the battle against drugs. It's a madness that beggers belief! Posted by: Frisbee at January 26, 2004 04:35 PMA bit below the belt: there are none so blind as those who cannot see. Mr Blunkett is well known for making a complete hash of things because he doesn't think about things very long and doesn't read much about them either. He claims to be a Christian: so if the body is a temple, why make it easier to pollute it with cannabis? It's odd that a man can be so authoritarian on the one hand about criminals (many of whom are criminals merely to fund their drug habits which started with tobacco and cannabis) and on the other hand so libertarian with those embarking upon a career which is likely to end with becoming either a drug addicted criminal or mentally deranged. Possibly he cannot see that freeing up police resources at one end is costing the NHS elsewhere: joined up Govt is a joke! Posted by: Peter H at January 26, 2004 05:45 PM"the most toxic varieties such as ?skunk? or home-grown marijuana becoming increasingly popular" Ms. Philips do u even know what skunk is? When cannabis is grown the two most popular ways of making it possible to smoke is make the bud into hashish or dry the buds. When you dry the flowering buds a comon name given this type of cannabis is skunk. Then from skunk u get 3 main types, sativa's which give a uplifting feeling. indica's (which are most homegrowers prefered type) which give a more relaxed feeling leaving. The 3rd type is hybrids- which are made of the best genes from different plants. Sum varities will b strong, others, very mild, different seeds give different results. So to say that 'skunk' as a hole is toxic is completly untrue and lacks any knowledge of the subject. my opionion is that pot should be legalised and only grown by liscened growers. A ducth style coffeeshop system can b set up where people can buy different strains to their own liking. In holland the goverment has rules that make sure nothing sold is over a certain strength. another article that shows a lack of knowledge of the subject, and just padding it out with figures from reports that fit the need. There have been many reports pro dope. Posted by: Oli at January 26, 2004 06:55 PMI have read your so-called article, and I find it incredible that a person who relies on hearsay, half-truth and bare-faced lies to back up her outdated opinion is still employed by a UK newspaper. You make reference to studies without providing adequate links, while at the same time ignoring studies, for example the study carried out last year by Degenhardt, Hall and Lynskey at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, University of New South Wales, which concludes quite categorically that there is no causal link between cannabis and psychosis. You keep disseminating the same old lies and horror stories, for what reason I know not, but your poison is losing it's potency. You see, cannabis smokers, on the whole, know more about the health effects of the drug than any governemt agency - we read ALL the research, not just the big business or government sponsored stuff. Humans have been using cannabis for ten thousand years without ill effects, do you seriously expect people to believe it's suddenly become dangerous, coincidentally just a few days before the proposed downgrading. I honestly don't know your agenda, so I can only speculate on why you seem to have made it your mission to mislead the public and further demonise a herb which has enough to contend with. And as a final point, just supposing, JUST SUPPOSING all the lies and reefer madness that has plagued the newspapers over recent weeks were true, it would still make no difference to the legalisation issue, It's a matter of human rights, it is my right as a human being to consume any substance I choose, and no government has the right to tell me I can't - there's a name for a governmental system in which that right is not recognised, it's called fascism. Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2004 07:37 PMThis isn't mine, but it fits: Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of NSW, NSW 2052, AIM: To model the impact of rising rates of cannabis use on the incidence ======================================= well who has woke up with a bee in her bonnet , listen ladie , cannabis is here ! its here to stay , it,s legitamate legal use is here to stay and my word for you is take it! leave it!but out of an infinate well of possabilitys things change so for my final word for you accet it! its real ! another pims for ms phillips , who do you think you are! tou are uneducated yet you think you know all about cannabis and its potency, do you know what isomerisation of trichromes and purification or converstion of cannabinols intio cannabidiols and thc acete or even the delta nine high rotating molecule, yes? no ? do these terms wring a bell, when you find someme doing your research you can talk about the effects of the poor picked on cannabis plant , keep taking the valium and propanol, marge,m oh and p.s fre the weed!!!! and chris baldwin legalise cannabis , coffee shops are here to stay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!skin up! Posted by: maria warner at January 26, 2004 08:21 PMMs Flat Earth Philips, how can you sleep at nights, peddling more dis/misinformation, procrastinating ignorance,prejudice and malice. Just think how mail Daily Drivel readers you are losing with this ill-informed run on anti-canabis and psychosis propaganda.Psychosis is a pre disposition within the gene pool, may be interbreeding wilol be your next scurilous topic. Mj medi weed user over thiry five years and retired multi-skilled professional Posted by: mary jane at January 26, 2004 09:11 PMMelanie We have really drawn the weirdo's out on this one. Note how defensive and bitchy they are. Unfortunately, this issue is typified by the likes of Chris who remarks, "It's a matter of human rights, it is my right as a human being to consume any substance I choose, and no government has the right to tell me I can't - there's a name for a governmental system in which that right is not recognised, it's called fascism." She has little concept of "responsibility" for which her parents are to blame. And it'll be the rest of society to pick up the tab for her medicare or incaceration. Deny any who smoke pot a driving licence, I say, and help keep death off the road. Our society is growing closer to the moment when drug testing will become more prominent. I have just re-read your so-called article, to try and shake some of the disbelief I felt after the first reading. Sadly, I find myself even more aghast at the mistruth and misrepresentation. If I may just pick up on further innacuracy, I note you have chosen to disseminate the lie regarding the cause of death of Lee Maisey, as your rag and the other tabloids (together with some of the more reputable press) have done. The coroner declared cannabis to be the cause of death simply because they were unable to establish a cause, and the deceased happened to have THC and cannabidiol in his blood. There was no actual link to cannabis. Nobody, in the ten thousand year history of cannabis use, has ever died. In fact, in the toxicity studies carried out on cannabis, scientists have still been unable to determine an LD50. Cannabis did not kill anyone. You also state, as if fact, that cannabis is addictive, and you even throw in the gateway theory. Even the most anti-cannabis research concedes that it is not physically addictive, and the gateway theory was discredited by serious cannabis researchers a decade or so ago. And then we get to the final piece, your brixton pastor - well for a start, anyone who calls himself pastor is probably out of touch with reality himself - his comment on souls kinda proves that point. And what he actually says - there, when all's said and done, is the crux of the matter. Far from having our wills taken away, the younger generation of cannabis smokers have just realised that your society, upheld as it is by liars like yourself writing in wastes of tree like your paper, is worthless. The life you force us into, the capitalist hell that is modern 'society' is the root cause of all the evils, we just toke to make it bearable. Posted by: Chris at January 26, 2004 09:40 PMJust to address the comment by frisbee, 'she' is a he. And he has plenty of concept of responsibility - he is well aware that responsible people can make informed and responsible decisions based on fact. And since he is a medical user, who has been badly let down by the NHS, and discovered cannabis helps his condition, the medicare (no such thing, mate, this is the UK, we get treated by the NHS) issue is utterly meaningless to him. It is disgusting that cannabis is being legalised. I wish that all these stoned idiots were locked up. Did you know that nearly all rapists have admitted to being Cannabis users. I wouldn't be suprised if most 'liberals' were wacked out on dope, when will they learn? I just thank The Lord Jesus that that evil plant is kept at bay by responsible politicians who won't be swayed by 'popular opinion' and scientific evidence. I worry that 'popular opinion' is getting hijacked by evil dope smugglers who want to see our precious babies addicted to Marijuana and spending the rest of their lives robbing good folk for money to pay for the Devils weed. Lock them all up and throw away the key! bless you Mel. Posted by: Patriot at January 26, 2004 10:00 PMMOST RAPISTS ADMIT TO DRINKING BEER OR AT THE VERY LEAST SMOKING CIGGERETTS. WHY DONT WE JUST LOCK EVERYONE UP JACKASS? Posted by: karma_rain at January 26, 2004 10:09 PMYes, every time i somke a J i feel an uncontrollable urge to go out and rape people.... i just cant controlol myself with these powerful drugs in my system..... I inform you that i am joking bacause you are clearly very very stupid. Posted by: honest_guy at January 26, 2004 10:12 PMhang on i just reread what u said, yes we all fear the day when the people who are in charge of the country listen to scienctific evidence, or do what the people who ARE the country want. Knowing that people like you are around makes me sad. Posted by: honest guy at January 26, 2004 10:15 PMKarma, If the Government had any sense then yes the alcohol abusers would be locked up too. Anyone who can't live with a clear mind, the love of our Lord Jesus, Her Royal Highness and this great country should be locked up for treason. Posted by: Patriot at January 26, 2004 10:19 PM"It is disgusting that cannabis is being legalised. I wish that all these stoned idiots were locked up. Did you know that nearly all rapists have admitted to being Cannabis users. I wouldn't be suprised if most 'liberals' were wacked out on dope, when will they learn? I just thank The Lord Jesus that that evil plant is kept at bay by responsible politicians who won't be swayed by 'popular opinion' and scientific evidence. I worry that 'popular opinion' is getting hijacked by evil dope smugglers who want to see our precious babies addicted to Marijuana and spending the rest of their lives robbing good folk for money to pay for the Devils weed. Lock them all up and throw away the key! bless you Mel." This is a joke right? Posted by: Stan at January 26, 2004 10:23 PMIn 1993, Kary Mullis, a user of LSD, won the Nobel Prize for the invention of the PCR reaction for generating copies of pieces of DNA. LSD is a far more potent hallucinogen than THC. There are reports of LSD users jumping off buildings because they thought they could fly. LSD is banned here in the USA. The point is that some users of some drugs may do foolish or harmful things. Alcohol users may kill. Shall we ban beer? Some users, like Mullis and others, may do wonderful things. I don't know whether there is a cause-and-effect relaionship between marijuana and foolishness in any particular case or between LSD and creativeness in any particular case. I don't think anyone else knows either. But to ban something by citing a few possible harmful instances is illogical and can cause harm in itself. We tried banning alcohol here many years ago. The result was disregard for law and entrenching the power of organized crime. Bad policy. It's no joke Stan, The devil and his evil weed backed by free-thinkers and people who have a clue seek to enslave us all in a web of Marijuana madness. God has chosen Ms Phillips and the Daily Mail as the cannon of Godliness with which to blow you demented tokers away with. Posted by: Patriot at January 26, 2004 10:50 PM"Deny any who smoke pot a driving licence, I say, and help keep death off the road." If your going to do that, why don't you want to ban people who drink? After all they account for FAR more car accidents than people under the influence of 'erb. Posted by: andy at January 26, 2004 11:16 PMCan't help but notice that the pro-cannabis users cannot spell properly; the anti-can ones can. Effects showing already? Or just signs of youthful immaturity? Posted by: Amy at January 27, 2004 12:15 AMCan't help but notice that the anti cannabis sheep don't bother reading the facts in the pro cannabis users comments, but merely nitpick on trivialities. Probably because they know, deep down, that they're wrong. Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2004 12:28 AMMelanie It was interesting (and not in the least surprising) that Jeremy Vine today made sure that the hour allotted for the 'debate' on cannabis was almost at an end before he introduced you to argue the case for NOT easing the laws relating to the abuse of dangerous drugs. Prior to that the pro cannabis bias had been heavily applied and you were given far too little time to develop your argument. You must have been fuming if you were listening prior to being patched in. Neither did Vine mention the fact that you had published today the first of a major two part article in the Daily Mail, did he? I was driving, and have been distracted if he did, but I don't think so. I'm sure the second part of your article will be just as powerful as today's piece, which if anything understates the lunacy that exists in place of a policy to enforce the law on Dangerous Drugs. I know you always bend over backwards in the interests of fairness. Moreover, I noted that Eddie Ellison, the ex-NSY Drugs Squad Chief, was introduced by Vine to sing the pro-legalisation song, rather than someone from the serving ranks of the Met Police to explain the despair and confusion at the sharp end that both government and police management policy has engendered. If Ellison had worked as hard to enforce the law on drugs when he was a serving police officer, as he has on behalf of doped-up lawbreakers since he retired, then the drugs plague might not have been as pervasive as it has now become. But I suppose like most of the current crop of police management, he spent almost as much time in that Ivory Tower, the Bramshill National Police College - and hostelries adjacent thereto, as he did in London. The combination of incompetence, laziness, cowardice, moral bankruptcy and defeatism in the campaign to legalise cannabis is breathtaking. To suggest that the problems that emanate from it's use should be duck-shoved on to families, schools, employers, social services and the already creaking accident and emergency services within the NHS is yet another cynical abrogation of responsibility on the part of those whose job it is to enforce the law. It is disgraceful and idiotic. Can someone tell me what we are paying the police to do these days? It seems that the vast majority are far too busy to engage in law enforcement? What's the point of the government passing extra laws, when the police are unable or unwilling to enforce the statutes that already exist. Keep up the good work Melanie. Your battle in the past few years against this scourge on humanity has been admirable. I wish I could say the same for my successors in the Metropolitan Police. They should hang their heads in shame.
Simply because cannabis has the potential to do serious harm, it does not follow that criminalising it is the best way of dealing with the problem. Somehow Melanie Phillips doesn't seem to understand that all these horror stories have been going on while cannabis is criminalised, and so surely this only shows that the present policy is not working. Alcohol does a lot of damage and is responsible for wrecking many lives and families. Yet it never did more damage than during prohibition. History shows that making drugs illegal invariably maximises the damage they cause. This is because by making drugs illegal you create a lucrative black market, and thereby increase the financial incentive to get people hooked. Drug addicts then have to turn to crime in order to pay for their habit. Also when drugs are illegal there is no control or scrutiny over the supplies, which means you create more dangerous batches that cause more illness and death. Then there's the argument that watering down the cannabis laws sends the wrong message to people that the drug is safe. But if people rely solely on the government to tell them what is or isn't good for them, then surely it's their own fault for not using their brains. It seems that people need Big Brother to hold their hand throughout life, because everything is too difficult for them. The problem is that Big Brother has failed to protect us from the drugs trade. The war on drugs can never be won because it is a war on human nature and imperfection. Posted by: Nick at January 27, 2004 12:55 AM*slap* Posted by: psycho at January 27, 2004 01:12 AMin the article Dominique Lansdowne stated that....
"Moreover, I noted that Eddie Ellison, the ex-NSY Drugs Squad Chief, was introduced by Vine to sing the pro-legalisation song, rather than someone from the serving ranks of the Met Police to explain the despair and confusion at the sharp end " Surely it's because Mr. Ellison HAS seen the 'despair and confusion at the sharp end' that he realises the current prohibition (a word chosen purposefully, think about what happened in the US and the birth of organised crime) doesn't work. Thank God there are some people who are open minded enough to consider other possibilities. Between 1985 and 1990 Dr John Marks conducted a trial study in Widnes on Merseyside whereby he prescribed herion to those who were addicted to that substance. Within those five years Widnes enjoyed a 96% reduction in thefts and break-ins, a 92% reduction in cases of new addiction and a reduction to ZERO in the number of deaths due to heroin overdose. My example does not relate to cannabis I know, but it illustrates my point that prohibition is often more harmful than the drug it's trying to stamp out. Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2004 07:56 AMwell put , folks aka sr, nothin but the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1we got some right wing fachists/ redneck people and nature hating jesus freak show on this level, glad to see some real people exist , keep them facts come flooding in , mind you give em all the info they need their peapod caffine stained brains will never understand , they are slaves to their own false sense of society which rotates round themselfs, cannabis is cannabis if you feel inclined to rape patriot then i advise you see a prison phycologist and leave innocent cannabis users alone and you can spout your bible bashing crud at the inmates redneck! free the weed! Posted by: indica at January 27, 2004 11:49 AMsr No, I suggested that police withdrawal from the fight against abuse and supply of dangerous drugs I will ignore the defamatory comment that followed. You are obviously a foolish young man and I forgive your ignorance. There was once a paragraph in the police instruction manual advising recruits how to deal with abuse from the public: "Idle and silly remarks are unworthy of notice and should be disregarded." Nowadays it seems that idle and silly remarks are framed into law and passed by Act of Parliament. Nick and Ben Well.. as someone who was at the sharp end of both policing and later the National Health Service between the 1950s and the end of the last century, I can reliably inform you that the exponential increase in the abuse and supply of all dangerous drugs, including cannabis, is directly proportional to the decrease in enforcement of drugs legislation and appropriate penalties imposed by courts relating to the demand end of the market. Moreover, the apparent unwillingness to enforce strictures on the proprietors of clubs and other places of mass public entertainment is another major factor in 'recreational' use of hallucinagens and narcotics. If more licences were withdrawn there would be a concomitant decrease in drugs abuse. And despite the comments of 'sr' above I repeat my point that if police are no longer prepared to address the dire social consequences of drug abuse by rigorous enforcement of the law and rather by suggesting that the laws should be weakened, then how can they expect other public services to cope with the fallout, with neither the muscle nor the resources to deal with such a deeply insidious and corruptive market? Another point is that I am informed by those still serving in the Met Police that cannabis and cocaine use is now widespread in the service. As for 'precribing' narcotics for addicts, I suppose you recommend that doctors 'prescribe' a bottle of whisky to alcoholics free on the NHS to obviate their need to beg or steal to sate their addicition?
The craven attitude of Police Chiefs who want to rid themselves of the 'drug issue'is sickening. Determination and effort is what is needed. More enforcement muscle and less cerebral evasion and agonising. But legalisation is where we are headed. So let's address the next stage: who will become the LEGAL suppliers, once the legislation is changed? The tobacco giants, or the great pharmacutical houses? I guess the trillion dollar drugs market would boost the share prices? And I suppose it would be even more cynical for me to believe that those with their investment already in these companies would stoop so low as to let it affect their judgement when framing the laws that would wipe out proscription of dangerous drugs and substitute prescription. After all our elected representatives are such honourable and upstanding leaders. And as for the old chestnut about the era of 'Prohibition'. What prohibition? They merely handed over the trade to the Mafia and nobody enforced the law of prohibition, except for the purpose of removing competition on behalf of the mafia family that was paying the corrupt police to do it. And if you're telling me that the situation improved and that less alcohol and less social disruption has occurred since Prohibition was repealed, then again I suggest you read history. The cocktail of politics and commercial planning in the moves to loosen the strictures on drug supply and abuse is devlish and your children and grandchildren will reap the bitter harvest. Frank
The vehemence of their arguments admirably demonstrates the degree of addiction. They surely cannot see that matters will increasingly get worse, no doubt aided and abetted by a politically correct constabulary. Posted by: Frisbee at January 27, 2004 12:26 PMThe avalanche of disagreement with Melanie's column was to be expected. I think the proposed new ruling is because the police simply can't cope with the problem. The thinking seems to be that if you can't enforce the legislation then "let's change the rules". I can't make any comment about whether or not cannabis is dangerous: it's outside of my experience. In my schooldays/youth (30s and 40s) drugs were unheard of in my community and tobacco and alcohol were the addictions that carried warnings. Most people smoked and drank and seemed none the worse for it. My own parents died in their late 80s after having been "twenty a day" smokers all their lives. I would have to carry out my own investigation to make a judgement on this current debate as I have little or no faith in "experts". In the meantime I have to sit on the fence although I have to say, sadly, that the willingness to break the law of the land is a severe indictment of today's society. Posted by: Henry Kaye at January 27, 2004 01:01 PMWell, the pro cannabis smoking lobby has come out in force. It remains a mystery why on the one hand smoking of tobacco (which is now actively discouraged by medical experts who took half a century to discover its ill effects and is legal) is generally accepted by everyone in society to be harmful, while on the other hand cannabis smoking is apparently promoted as harmless by the very same people who wouldn't loudly proclaim that tobacco smoking is beneficial and good for you and a human right! Every tobacco smoker knows he is an addict. No one claims it is harmless or beneficial. Nicotine may appear to calm people down, but usually they lack calmness due to their craving for nicotine. Getting drunk is equally stupid and it is done on a regular basis by many people but no one will claim it is beneficial to anyone. In theory the taxes on tobacco and alcohol will pay for the NHS treatment associated with the damage it causes to the human mind and body. Cannabis users are also addicts and some day they are going to have to sue the pants off their dealers when they are ill from its effects aren’t they? I do hope all the dealers are putting away some of their profits to meet these future demands especially because of poor labelling without health warnings. I hope all the cannabis users are also taxing themselves and setting aside a pound for every pound they spend on drugs so that they can draw on this self imposed tax when things get bad. I don’t see why my taxes should fund cannabis users’ treatment of any of their drug related illnesses since the law says it was unlawful to use the stuff. Those who think it ought to be legalised ought also to be high minded enough to be taxing themselves! If they believe it to be harmless, and fail to build up their nest egg medical reserve fund, then doubtless they will deny themselves any medical treatment. Pleasure has its price and I for one would rather not pay for others' indulgence. People who pop pills or take drugs to alter their state of mind have a problem that they wish to blot out. Basically they are unhappy about something. Clearly from the responses to this posting, they are an angry lot as well. The publication of lies, misinformation and selective truths are part and parcel of a free society. Why get so upset about it? The only thing to get upset about is the cost in human misery of lives wrecked and the cost in taxes to pick up the pieces as a result of drug abuse, whether tobacco, alcohol, cannabis or opiates etc. It is clear that the pro cannabis lobby on these postings (with a few exceptions) are unable to write English with the usual care and attention expected of anyone who wants to communicate effectively. QED: being stoned affects the brain and the ability to spell, type and construct sentences. David Blunkett is a foolish man who deserves the censure of all who know that all drugs are bad for human beings. He's taken a wrong decision here, and it is done without reference to Parliament. Thank you, Melanie, I look forward to tomorrow's article. The responses you have received from the critics tend to prove the old adage that "a hit dog usually yells when it's been hit." Interesting to compare the assertion by one pro-dope contributor that the NSW study "concludes quite categorically that there is no causal link between cannabis and psychosis" with what the study actually concluded, courtesy of a later contributor: "Cannabis use does not appear to be causally related to the incidence of schizophrenia, but its use may precipitate disorders in persons who are vulnerable to developing psychosis and worsen the course of the disorder among those who have already developed it." Not quite the same thing, is it? But use of half-truths is common amongst the advocates of sin, hell and death. I suspect the same is true of much of the huge, convoluted, pro-dope insert above, and therefore draw attention to the Christian Institute publication, downloadable from their site, "Going Soft on Cannabis, Demolishing 15 Key Arguments for the Downgrading of Cannabis Laws." This item is very readable and well-referenced. CI have to get it right, because their findings may be used in court actions and a great many influential individuals/organisations would love to hang them out to dry. Here is a sample from the site, references included in the original: 6. “Cannabis is nothing like as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol yet they are legal and cannabis is not.” "Cannabis contributes to road accidents: "In a recent survey, cannabis was present in 12% of fatal road accident casualties (drivers, riders, passengers and pedestrians). In contrast to alcohol cannabis can have an unpredictable effect on users. A cannabis smoker may not be aware of any deficit. For example in one survey of drug-drivers, 10 out of the 39 cannabis users believed that taking cannabis improved their driving. The impairing effect of cannabis use on driving can continue much longer than that of alcohol. Cannabis users can experience flashbacks several weeks after taking cannabis. Roughly a quarter of cannabis users experience some kind of flashback." The survey referred to above was conducted by the DETR in the year 2000. A Home Office publication, issued 2001, also referenced by CI stated that: "If current trends continue, even without any change in the law, cannabis use will overtake alcohol abuse as a factor in road accidents." St John predicted the current trends 20 centuries in advance: "Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts" Revelation 9:21. "Sorcery" is dope. Once again, lies, damn lies and insults from the prohibition lobby, instead of reasoned debate. Instead of claiming we are all insane/addicted/a menace to society/selfish hedonists, why don't you blinkered sheep actually read the facts we have provided you with. Legalisation will cause NO strain on the NHS if the government tax cannabis. The comments about big business/big pharm are just imbecilic, who do you think it is putting pressure on the US and by extension the UK to keep cannabis illegal. Pharmacuetical companies were historically responsible for the criminalisation due to political pressure, and the situation hasn't changed. Legal pill pushers don't want pot legal, they know what an effective medicine it is, and they're worried. As for the asinine comment about giving up truth for pleasure, that is quite simply the most stupid comment I have heard this year. We know the truth, as we keep demonstrating, but you prohibition fools just won't listen. I really can't understand your ridiculous opinions, my smoking pot harms no-one, why do you seek to criminalise me for an act which is neither immoral nor harmful to anyone (with the possible exception of myself). My smoking herb does not infringe on your human rights one iota, but your prohibition does infringe my rights. How you have the audacity to try and take the moral high ground when you are the people that are repressing me is utterly beyond me. Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2004 02:07 PMI am more concerned that your "smoking herb" may infringe my safety and/or that of my family if you exercised an alleged "human right" to get behind the wheel of a car while (unknowingly) still stoned. To cite the Christian Institute again: "The law has a role in protecting people from themselves. "Legalisation will cause NO strain on the NHS if the government tax cannabis." Do the Daily 'hate' Mail mob know how much is spent on alcohol related incidents each year? £3 billion & rising! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1844363.stm Why not ban alcohol? Why not ban everything, & we can live happily ever after in oxygen tents wrapped in cotton wool balls! Posted by: Mr.Bishie at January 27, 2004 02:45 PMCan't help but notice that the pro-cannabis users cannot spell properly; the anti-can ones can. Effects showing already? Or just signs of youthful immaturity? Posted by: Amy at January 27, 2004 12:15 AM
Frank Pulley you are a narrow minded individual, I feel very very sad for you. Posted by: Paul at January 27, 2004 03:52 PMDo you not think it is the duty of a responsible "journalist" (and I use the word loosely) to present a unbiased argument, in the reporting of the news so that readers can make an informed decision on the subject matter? Or is it more important to stage a photograph of two innocent looking schoolboys with a joint and make biased and ill informed judgements to serve your own media agenda? Which sells more papers? I find your blinkered attitudes offensive, and wonder if you consider yourself a matriarchal crusader or a legitimate news journalist? Posted by: BM at January 27, 2004 03:55 PMFranck - And we're facing exactly the same situation today. My point was, and is, that prohibition actually causes more harm than the prohibited substance itself. "As for 'precribing' narcotics for addicts, I suppose you recommend that doctors 'prescribe' a bottle of whisky to alcoholics free on the NHS to obviate their need to beg or steal to sate their addicition?" Heroin itself in its pure unadulterated form is actually less harmful than whisky. The problems arise from the adulteration that is a direct result of prohibition. Deaths from liver disease during prohibition in the US actually decreased, however deaths from causes such as brain damage increased due to people drinking any and everything they could get their hands on. "Many of course are already on the haycart, talk to their parents and loved ones, you selfish, despicable idiots." How dare you! You have no idea of my personal situation or background. However as you have labelled me as a 'druggy' you instantly assume that I'm some kind of layabout, good for nothing dosser who began life with the intelligence of a worm and is now considerably less smart due to my 'abuse' of 'drugs'. Frisbee - And what does the vehemence (and lack of eloquence) say about you my dear?
I for one am unhappy about lots of things. Most of them are a result of the mass ignorance so clearly demonstrated by yourself. "The publication of lies, misinformation and selective truths are part and parcel of a free society. Why get so upset about it?" Call me an idealist, but I get upset about it because it's wrong. I sincerely believe that our goverments and authorities should be giving us a balanced impartial view of the facts and allowing us to make up our own minds. In response to alan o'reilly, I will never get behind the wheel of a car, either stoned or not, because I have chosen not to own an unnecessary waste of natural resources. Do you, however, think of my health as you pollute my air with your automobile? I very much doubt it. And you can quote the christian institute to your hearts content, I am not a christian, and I honestly feel people hiding behind such outdated institutions as the christian church need not just to get with the 21st century, but possibly even the 20th too, since your views are so pitifully outdated. Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2004 04:09 PM__________________________ I say, steady on chaps! Let's not get carried away. The Government is in trouble over the legislative changes to the use of cannabis. Why do I say that? Well the Commons committee that endorsed the reclassification of cannabis, is now to reconsider the situation again this year as a result of 'new research' which shows more clearly that it is harmful. One wonders though! Is this a type of 'get off' message because they have been caught out making a fuddled choice? I think Thialand is currently making a concerted effort at stamping out drug abuse. It will be interesting to see what transpires. Posted by: Frisbee at January 27, 2004 04:41 PM"I think Thialand is currently making a concerted effort at stamping out drug abuse." And do you know how they first went about doing that?? They were killing methamphetamine addicts in the street, FFS! Way to go! Posted by: Mr.Bishie at January 27, 2004 04:46 PMSix weeks shy of his ninth birthday Chakkapan Srisa-ard achieved a notoriety he could never have expected. He died, caught in gunfire during a police sting operation in Bangkok, a victim of a bloody government war on drugs that is coming under increasing scrutiny. Raeed Junuthai, a 53-year-old housewife murdered a week earlier in Suphanburi province, shows another facet of the deadly force unleashed by Thai leaders to smash the drug scourge in a country with one of the highest rates of amphetamine abuse. Her husband Somkiat relates how a district councillor warned Raeed two weeks ago she was on a drugs blacklist and should report to local police. The next morning a gunman shot her dead a few hundred yards from her home. Neighbours said a stranger in a white pick-up asked for her while she was out fishing in rice paddies. Soon after they saw him stop his car, walk up to her and heard gunfire. Somkiat found her face down beside the road, shot in the head, back and arms. The dress, weapon and competence of the gunman leave Somkiat convinced she was shot by undercover police. 'It's horrible, I'm so scared, I can't work, I have nothing to give my children,' Somkiat said. 'If we were dealing drugs we wouldn't be poor like this,' he said gesturing around the empty brick and wood house. Both deaths shed light on one of the world's bloodiestdrug war. By Friday, government figures showed more than 1,140 deaths and 8,500 arrests since February 1. Police put the killings at 500, but acknowledge shooting only 22, claim self-defence, and say drug gangs are behind the rest. But like most Thais, lawyer Somchai Homlaor of the human rights group Asia Forum, believes police death squads are to blame. Killings of dealers are not new here. At the Justice Ministry's Central Institute of Forensic Science, Porntip Rojanasunan is used to execution-style shootings and 'has no doubt' some are the work of police squads. Around Suphanburi, locals say such killings have been going on for years and are accepted to be the work of undercover government agents. But the scale has caused alarm. Thailand is becoming 'a kingdom of fear,' said Judge Charan Pakdithanakul, of Thailand's National Human Rights Commission. The government admits some 700 police and military officials are implicated in drug-dealing. 'We are afraid that dealers who are also government officials can use their power to kill people to prevent them giving information or becoming witnesses,' said Asia Forum's Somchai. The driving force behind the crackdown is Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire business tycoon turned politician who prides himself on decisive action. Five years ago he pledged to solve Bangkok's traffic problems in 90 days, only to face media derision when little changed. He has set a three-month deadline to crush the drugs industry. Opinion polls have shown Thaksin has overwhelming public support. Amphetamines or ' yaa baa ' (crazy pills) have seeped into every corner and most classrooms, evidence of a level of drug abuse among the highest in the world. The Interior Ministry ordered provincial governors to cut down a blacklist of over 46,000 names of drug dealers and consumers by 25 per cent in the first month. Interior minister Wan Muhammad Noor Matha warned failure to do this could cost governors their jobs. In Suphanburi province, district administration chief Kriengkrai praises the campaign. 'If the problem isn't tackled in this way my district will have a problem with 6,000 people not 600 and all officials will be drug dealers with the wealth to buy an election,' he said. He added the killing of Mrs Raeed galvanised those on the blacklist to turn themselves in. But police bosses question the reliability of the lists and criticism of the campaign escalated at home and abroad with the mounting evidence of its violent excess. 'Encouragement for extra-judicial killings has been given at the highest level with law enforcement officers under heavy pressure to produce results or lose their jobs,' Amnesty International warned. The UN High Commission on Human Rights this week expressed 'deep concern', urging strict compliance with international standards of human rights and called for an investigation. To make matters worse, the campaign has inflicted little damage on the drugs kingpins. 'If you scrutinise the names of those killed, there's not a single big-time dealer,' said Judge Charan. 'In this war drug dealers must die,' Thaksin said. 'But we don't kill them, it's a matter of the bad guy killing the bad guys.' He has been puzzled at the protest. 'I don't understand why some people are so concerned about [pushers] while neglecting to care for the future of one million children who are becoming lured into becoming drug users.' But it was difficult to sidestep the protest on Thursday when a television cameraman fell to his knees with a petition to investigate his parents' murder, shot after reporting to police. Thaksin this week will call a review of the campaign's conduct, particularly on government blacklists. On Friday he announced the formation of committees to monitor police performance and protection of informants and witnesses. Thaksin has now ordered a probe into Chakkapan's death. But attempts by Porntip to join the investigation and autopsy quickly ran into a police brick wall. A victim's next of kin can request a second, independent autopsy, but the child's father is in custody. Unsurprisingly he has made no such request. Is that what you'd call "stamping out" drug abuse then Frisbee? Posted by: Mr.Bishie at January 27, 2004 04:51 PMWell Miss (never tell the real truth) Philips, I think your mouth should be scrubbed with carbolic, and as for Frank you are so mis informed and opinionated. Speak out with you ignorance, for it is only believed by a tight arsed minority. When people like 'Bishie', put forward the most inhumane truth. Cannabis, marijuanna, what ever you want to call it is believed by some to be a God given Herb. Like it or not it will be a medicinal wonder again and the many people, who for many years have used cannabis have no side effects; are well adjusted and intelligent beings, unlike Ms (so far right she has fell of her flat earth ) Philips who speaks as though this planet wasnt one she particulary wished to be part of. mj I thought the Yanks were the only ones who used "Reefer Madness" type scare-tactics. Dominique was probably a mindless clot to begin with. This article is twaddle. Posted by: Harvey at January 27, 2004 06:50 PMI just wanted to say that i have smoked cannabis since my first crafty Devil stick (that wot u callin spliffs now mel?) with some friends when i was 15. Im not a dumb lad, I achieved good grades in school. Upon leaving I attended college and smoked myself stupid and still passed with flying colours. University flew by in a drug fueled roller coaster ride where i me tloads of crazy new people and had a really really good time, without suffering any of the paranoid behaviour you are so ready to write about. I do NOT think that cannabis is dangerous. I think a good argument for the decriminalising or legalising the 'evil weed' is to stop any of the procedes going to fund terrorist activities(like invading iraq). A taxed cannabis would generate millions for the government (and yes mel 75% of people i have met smoke pot) and maybe fix our crumbling healh sysytem, public transport or simply helping old people stay warm in the winter. Currently I've a medical permit, Hawai`i, cannabis has let me greatly reduce many of the meds I was taking. I've a number of health problems after having a multiple viral infection in 1997. Reading your article makes me want to take drugs or cry... ... Posted by: Itchytriggerfingerniggah at January 27, 2004 08:14 PMIt seems most people here disagree with you Ms Phillips. Posted by: chris at January 27, 2004 09:11 PMfrank I’m sorry about the defamatory comment, your right it was cheap, and probably bourn of ignorance, but you must admit your comments about police officer's who don’t agree with your stance, was just as defamatory, I’ll have to remember that frank, next time you start on one of your non-factual Mr/Ms SR, thank you for taking the time to post that. I have been reading these comments and had a post formulated until I read your post. My general opinion of marijuana users is that they become delinquent individuals, if not harmful then at least less useful to society and themselves. Your post SR highlights something which I, and I believe many other people, have missed. Namely that Marijuana or Cannabis can be and is beneficial to some people and is rarely particularly dangerous despite its frequent mis-use in our society. I have never touched Marijuana or any other illicit drug, nor do I smoke; I do like a drink or two though but that's another story, or as some here have pointed out, is it? I am no supporter or Marijuana and it's users but is it really sensible to keep arresting them and giving them records. They do not seem to hurt anyone other than perhaps themselves, and that is their business. There are more important issues that need attention. Posted by: Miranda at January 28, 2004 12:07 AMI have never touched Marijuana or any other illicit drug, nor do I smoke; I do like a drink or two though but that's another story, or as some here have pointed out, is it? Posted by: Miranda at January 28, 2004 12:07 AM Alcohol kills more people than ALL other drugs combined. How many people have ever died from the effects of cannabis use, prolonged or otherwise? Posted by: Johnny at January 28, 2004 12:32 AMDear Mizzz Phillips As a "responsible Journo" i would have expected a much more well thought out and researched opions not regurgitated ancient/disproven Ainslinger propaganda. I suggest you find out about the subject you try to preach about. Cannabis has been used medincially and recreationally for 1000's of years by many cultures and has never killed anyone by overdose !! Cannabis is a drug which in most causes peace and relaxation unlike most of my fellow countrymans drug of choice Allcohol which clogs up the NHS with its violent fallout daily. Check the Dutch Hospitals and find out how many Cannabis users daily assault Nurses ?? the answer is of course none and most reading this knew it !! however much some may want to hide from the truth. Its true that cannabis's effects can be harmful to a small percentage of the population who may be susceptable to physcosis's and Cannabis use can cause a further exacerbation of thier mental problems, just as many other drugs legal and illegal do already to the susceptable.. Please realise it, your arguement is flogging a very dead horse and you will only whip up hysteria with the faithful jackbooted type. Wake up and smell the coffee, especially from your coming to a town near you "CannaCoffeshop". Peace + Freedom Posted by: whoami at January 28, 2004 01:26 PMplease dont let the govt. relax prohibition anymore. wow . I was going to post something interesting and relevant to the debate based on my experience working with the mentally ill,the young and the homeless and how i have never really come across any problems associated with cannabis (unlike crack,heroin and alcohol). check it out bob Posted by: bob at January 28, 2004 02:28 PMWhilst driving home tonite I tuned into the radio and came across a discussion on cannabis. Melanie was on the panel, and, well, she's incredible really. I don't have a view myself on the cannabis issue (not having heard all the arguments) but this woman has absolutely no sense of what it means to 'discuss' an issue. I really had to laugh because I've never heard anyone so steadfastly refuse to listen to and consider what others are saying. She tries incredibly hard to sound learned & intelligent but when faced with a reasoned argument opposing her own views this quickly breaks down and she is unable to think outside her own rigid box. I am psychotic (can't spell) and I never take drugs except what the doctor gives me? Why do I need drugs to make me go insane? Melanie, I'm afraid you are terribly behind the times. For a long time, everyone has known that pot is harmless, so prohibitionist control freaks had to come up new lies. You really should get with the program and promote the *new* lies -- try the "pot funds terrorism" lie or something. Posted by: Joe Sixpack at January 29, 2004 08:21 AMHaving read this and all the comments, we (the stoners) know what the effects are and we willing take them. As people have said, its a plant that is on the planet, less people die from smoking cannabis than say drunk murders, drink driver, etc. As for the God people, I personally am an athiest and more and more people are turning away from religion each year as it is being disproven. Some guy writes a book to explain things he cant explain, and a few hundred years later, people are reading this fiction thinking of it as true. Grow up dudes Posted by: truth guy at January 29, 2004 03:44 PMMelanie Phillips your article is one lie after another. You really do talk a lot of rubbish don't you. Thankfully intelligent people will realise what a lot of uninformed second hand tosh you write. I can't believe that there is so much bollocks being written about cannabis, when alcohol IS proven to be a much more addictive, dangerous AND LEGAL drug! I guess its poor sods that read trash like the Daily Mail that keep the myth of cannabinoid-dangers alive... Hypocrites! Posted by: Jon at January 29, 2004 04:33 PMMelanie is right in terms of her logic - but she tends (in articles like this one) to: 1) take the logic to the logical extreme An individual can destroy his or her life in any number of ways - through excessive drinking, through excessive smoking, through unprotected sexual promiscuity, through gambling and losing everything. Therefore smoking dope is but one way. And it is not the worst as some of the other activities listed above can be far more damaging. If smoking dope is to remain criminalised then by sheer logic all of the above should also be criminalised too. However, who would police whether people indulge in risky behaviour? And, shouldn't the police be concerned about the type of risky behaviour that puts other people most at risk?: ie, violent crime, robbery, rape, drink-driving etc... By failing to tackle dope smoking in a relativist way (ie by asking: 'How dangerous and anti-social is it - both qualitatively and quantitatively - in relation to other of society's 'ills') she has failed to argue her case effectively and convincingly. Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 05:03 PMI cannot see how people can condemn cannabis use when they openly use harder drugs such as alcohol themselves. I challenge anyone to name an incident of cannabis related violence or vandalism. Stop trying to make people scared of "unruly dangerous stoners" and let it go. Posted by: Smoky McPot at January 29, 2004 06:07 PMI think it's easy for the man in the street to condemn cannabis use whilst condoning alcohol use, when recently we had a coroner identify cannabis as the primary cause of a murder, with alcohol not being implicated, despite the killer having been found by the police unconscious from drink in his kitchen, and having to be rushed to A&E with alcohol poisoning. The reality, as any informed and intelligent person realises, is that at times 80% of A&E admissions are alcohol-related, whereas violence under the influence of cannabis alone is virtually unheard of. What chance does the truth have, though, when faced by either blatant delusion or deliberate misinformation by those in power? Needless to say, his views were given a very high profile in the Daily Mail. I wouldn't pretend cannabis was harmless, although the paucity of solid medical evidence against it despite vast efforts in some quarters to prove otherwise is notable. I feel that if it had been alcohol under the microscope the warnings would have been rather more strident by now. Posted by: TD at January 29, 2004 10:14 PMDamn longhairs never learn. Don't you realise that if someone happens to fall ill in some way and have used one of the new super strong and extra bad strains of the evil “skunk” plant in the same year, then the cannabis is without doubt responsible? Or has the devils weed destroyed your mind to the point where you can't see the evidence in front of you? What you can not argue with is the fact that legalisation would result in more smelly hippies in our towns peddling lies about things like global warming and equal rights for people who aren't even British, American or Israeli. Its all part of a left wing cannabis conspiracy, probably with links to terrorism. These kids smoke a “reefer” and then go on like they know everything about everything. They have no respect for queen and country and should be hung for treason. "This is not the first time this newspaper has made ill-informed or inaccurate comments" Drugscope sums it up,a very one-sided opinionated article,as to be expected in the Daily Mail,and from reading previous posts,exactly what thier readers want to hear. Expect this also to be Censorsed Posted by: Medi-user at February 3, 2004 04:03 PMliar! liar! my joint's on fire! Your thing on radio 4 was totally kick ass! I've never laughed at anyone so hard. Do you write this stuff yourself Mel? or do you just take it from script? You should do a show at the komedia in brighton. Me and all my mates would buy tickets for sure. Posted by: kraftycuts at February 3, 2004 05:41 PMYour view is totally one sided and wrong! I know many cannabis smokers who are successful in there everyday lives. The government has not gone far enough. Full legalization is the only answer to reducing crime. Lets have a little bit of this British freedom we keep talking about and stop enforcing iniquitous American policies on this side of the Atlantic. Posted by: Citizen at February 3, 2004 05:42 PMDear Mr Marks I listened to the radio programme about cannabis the other evening on Radio 4. Who was that woman who was arguing so much, someone called Melanie somebody? It sounded like she had been drinking or taking amphetamines. Yet you sounded so reasonable but I guess you were high on weed?. It seemed that you Howard was taking into account both sides of the evidence in the row about classification, yet she was just using stuff to support her own problem stance with cannabis whilst accusing you wrongly of doing the same. Do you think Melanie should see a doctor because the way she was almost shouting abuse at you and the things she was saying suggests some form of mental ilness? Mr Marks, I can appreciate that the debate can get heated but do you really think this Melanie woman has ever read any of the empirical evidence about cannabis? The biggest harm that comes from cannabis is from this out dated law stopping people from getting good clean cannabis. There is always going to be a black market for cannais, just the same as there is for tobbaco and alchole. But there could be places where people needing cannabis for medical reason should be able to go to get their medication. These places could even make this government money from taxes, this would help the NHS with so much needed money. The general public would get better hospitals and the medical users would get good clean medication with out fear of being put into prison or getting a criminal record. It is the law making people go crazy with fear of prison and end up making them selves mentelly ill.So reclassfication does not even go any way near far enough, lets just stop this REEFA MADNESS now and let people make their own minds up how they treat their bodies. If one person wants to drink beer well that is up to them, if another person wants to use cannabis for any reason they should also be given the same chance. Why does it always have to be one law for one and another for others. It is time for some equality and stop the double standards. TIME FOR SOME OPEN MINDS IN THIS COUNTRY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! Posted by: Trevor Smith at February 3, 2004 06:30 PMThe devil and his evil weed backed by free-thinkers and people who have a clue seek to enslave us all in a web of Marijuana madness. God has chosen Ms Phillips and the Daily Mail as the cannon of Godliness with which to blow you demented tokers away with. Posted by: Patriot at January 26, 2004 10:50 PM NOW THIS REALLY IS A JOKE patriot HOPR YOU GET WELL SOON Posted by: Trevor Smith at February 3, 2004 06:38 PMYour comments are based upon hysterical bias not scientific fact I fail to understand how the Daily Mail can justify payiong for your rantings. Posted by: Cannabis user at February 3, 2004 06:46 PMbitch deleted my post! "bitch deleted my post! Yes, if you want your post to remain here you need to copy it to a text file and re-post it every morning. Posted by: Buster at February 3, 2004 08:34 PMEy oop Mel, Here they are.... Melanie Phillips's, by censoring our responses you are dening your readers the chance to examine the other side of the argument. Are you really that treatend by us? Hi, you can now downward an mp3 version of a BBC radio program featuring Melanie Phillips debating current cannabis law with ex drug smuggler Howard "MR NiCE" Marks. Richard, expect your post to be vapourised, as it appears that anyone who mentions that amazingly funny radio interview has their post pulled.
Your words...."A number of trolls who object to my views about drugs have been attempting to hijack the site by clogging it up with the kind of drivel that deters those who want to take part in intelligent debate. [WHERE IS THE INTELLIGENT DEBATE? I SEE ABOUT 40 POSTS SAYING YOU ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR BOTTY, AND MAYBE 5 POSTS SAYING YOU ARE RIGHT] Accordingly, I have been deleting those posts which I consider to be mischievous or malicious, and will continue to do so. Some of them, however, have been trying to post links to last week's Moral Maze debate on cannabis in which I took part. While it is unhelpful to have such posts interrupting sensible discussion, I am delighted to post the link here, http://www.ukcia.org/mp3s/moral_maze_cannabis_28_01-04.mp3 so that anyone who is interested can listen. My exchange with the noted drug smuggler Howard Marks received the supreme accolade of inclusion on Radio Four's Start the Week last weekend (which, alas, has no play-back facility). The trolls have been wetting themselves in delight over his performance, which says all one needs to know about them, I fear. " You got it wrong, we are laughing at your pathetic attempt to make out that weed will turn us all into zombies. Admit it, you ARE wrong, and NEED to do some PROPER research. We went through this two years ago, and you sent me a mail saying that one of the symptoms of Cannabis use is it makes the user unable to believe any sensible argument against it........I have yet to hear your sensible argument. OK, now go ahead and delete my post again. See you tomorrow ;o)
Frank Pulley, you make me laugh :-) Your comments are so ridiculous, you've got to be joking ... Right ? Posted by: Greenfingers at February 3, 2004 11:01 PMMelanie, |
