The Christian Institute
Who we are | Support | Contact | Site help
Legalising
Cannabis
By Iain Bainbridge
©1997
The Christian Institute
Contents
Introduction
The
Present UK Law
The Civil Liberties Dimension
Harm
Reduction and Drug Prevention
Examples
of Harm Reduction Advice
Christian
Comment
Public Opinion
The
Legalisation of cannabis - for and against
The Position In Other Countries
Cannabis use is linked to ...
Conclusions
Alternatives
to Legalisation
References
Introduction
What have the Methodist Church (1), a number of MPs (2) , The Independent newspaper, the European Commissioner for consumer affairs (3) , the Head of Interpo (4) and 16 senior members of the judiciary (5) got in common? The answer is that they have all reportedly called for the legalisation of cannabis to be considered. The campaign has come a long way since it was first launched with a full-page advertisement in The Times in 1967.(6)
Calls for legalisation are now not so much found in advertisements but in newspaper editorials. In October 1995 The Independent, for example, stated that it:
'has long argued for the legalisation and licensing of those drugs that have little or no ill-effect on health if used in moderation, like alcohol, like cannabis and (in all probability) like the dance drug Ecstasy.' (7)
The tragic death of Leah Betts, who died within weeks of this editorial after taking an Ecstasy tablet, makes this statement look rather foolish and irresponsible. Yet this sort of comment is not untypical.
Britain
certainly faces a serious drugs problem. The official estimate is
that over £500 million of tax payers money is spent by the
Government on tackling drug misuse each year. (8)
This excludes many indirect costs (e.g unemployment, housing.) The
number of registered addicts has rocketed from approximately 1,000
in 1970 to almost 30,000 in 1992. Seizures of drugs by customs and
police have risen from 11,000 in 1974 to nearly 70,000 in 1992.
(9)
Top
The Present UK Law
There are three categories of illegal drugs in the United Kingdom; Classes A, B and C. Class A is the most serious. It is illegal to possess, supply or manufacture these drugs. (See Fig 1.)
As cannabis is a Class B drug the police have the power to stop and search any person they believe have it on them. Theoretically stiff custodial sentences can be applied (See Fig 1). In reality however, according to the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency:
"About a third of all cannabis offenders are either not taken to court at all or discharged. Less than 10 per cent of those found in possession of cannabis are sentenced to immediate (as opposed to suspended) imprisonment. Most prison sentences for cannabis are for no more than a year, while fines are generally between £20 and £100. (10)"
The use of cautioning increased dramatically from 1% of cases in 1981 to 45% of cases in 1992. (11)
The Civil Liberties Dimension
It is often argued that the prohibition of the use of cannabis represents an unjustified infringement of people's civil liberties. Surely, they say, taking drugs is a private matter and does not affect others. This is the classic libertarian position of J S Mill, that:
"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (12)"
There is a growing campaign from the political Left and Right for drugs to be legalised. (13) As the authors of a British Social Attitudes (BSA) report observe:
"Articles
calling for legalisation of certain drugs are as likely to appear
in the Economist as the New Statesman." (14)
Top
Harm Reduction and Drug Prevention
As calls for legalisation have grown, recent years have witnessed a dramatic change of emphasis in the general approach to the drugs problem. Prevention has been replaced by 'harm reduction' as the overriding strategy employed by government and drug misuse agencies.
The approach of the 1980's was one of empowering young people to "Just Say No" and to resist peer pressure to take drugs. In the 1990's the view prevailing amongst organisations in the field seems to be that it is now a waste of time trying to dissuade young people from using drugs.
A recent academic study by the highly respected BSA concluded that drugs professionals in Britain have "a very liberal approach towards drugs." (15)
'Drug agency workers are virtually united in rejecting abstention as a policy, believing that this is not only unrealistic but that it has proved counterproductive in the past. Much better, they argue, to accept that drug use will occur and warn those doing so of the risks they take. (16)'
An international comparison with Sweden confirms this picture. A study (17) sought the opinions of drug professionals on eight key issues. It ranked the response on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most liberal and 5 being the most restrictive attitude to drugs. The average score for the Swedish drug professionals was 3.8, compared to an average of 2.0 for British drug workers. BSA put the same issues to members of the British public and found that the average score was 3.5. (18) This illustrates that our 'front-line' prevention workers hold far more liberal views than the public as a whole.
Harm reduction, the approach initially intended to be used when dealing with addicts is now being used almost universally among young people. The importance of harm reduction is not being disputed. When faced with individuals that are dependent on drugs it is right to seek to minimise the harm that they are suffering. Hardened drug addicts do need to be helped to give up drugs. In the short term this may well involve seeking to minimise the dangers from their habit. Applying harm reduction methods universally, however, is inappropriate.
The
message conveyed is often; "You have to make your own decision.
We'll give you the information and leave you to make your own judgement.
(19)"
Top
The harm reduction approach can be criticised on a number of grounds:
- It fails to see the issue as a moral one, implicitly presenting drug-taking as a valid option.
- It assumes that young people are mature enough to make wise decisions on these matters.
- It fails to take into account the effect of peer pressure.
- The information given is often not objective.
- It implies that the drugs issue is an entirely private one. It fails to take into account the high price society pays for the effects of drug abuse.
- It emphasises the autonomy of young people over their parents and society.
- It risks instilling in young people and parents a false assurance that the risks involved in taking 'recreational drugs' are negligible.
- It fails to recognise that the purity and toxicity of street drugs varies tremendously. Buying drugs, particularly 'hard' drugs is a dangerous lottery.
Young
people do need information. Literature should emphasise the dangers
and folly of drug-taking. It should positively seek to persuade
young people not to take drugs rather than adopt a 'take it or leave
it approach' which may do more harm than good.
Top
Christian CommentChristians believe that everyone has a natural tendency to act wrongly. (24) The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. Marriage and the nurture of children within the family, social conventions, the Church and the law, should all have a vital role in discouraging wrong behaviour and promoting good. Proper fear of authority is a healthy thing. As Digby Anderson states:- "Goodness does not come naturally. Weak, tempted humans need authority and fear to promote their goodness." (25) Habits of wrong behaviour develop which become increasingly difficult to amend. (26) Personal behaviour inevitably affects other people. The law is a necessary restraint on wrong behaviour for the good of us all. Without law society itself would collapse. Legislating morality is therefore an act of societal self-protection. The sole purpose of taking cannabis is to become intoxicated. The Bible repeatedly condemns intoxication when it addresses drunkenness. Firstly, when intoxicated, people lose control. This often leads to wrong actions such as irresponsible behaviour, violence or sexual immorality. (27) Secondly, substance abuse leads to problems in health, relationships and work. Money spent on alcohol or drugs is not available for food, housing and clothing. This can have profound effects on the family. (28) Thirdly, dependence on drugs or alcohol compounds problems. Fourthly, drugs are a means of escapism and distort one's perception of reality. No one can ever solve their problems by running away from them. Christians are instructed that their body 'is the temple of the Holy Spirit. (29) They are not to abuse their bodies. Christians are exhorted to "be alert and self-controlled. (30)" They are to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not by alcohol. (31) Within the Church, a qualification of all Christian leaders is that they should 'not be given to drunkenness. (32)' Ultimately man's problem is one of a relationship with God broken by sin. Only by recognising this and by turning to God in repentance can man find peace with God and power to change a wrong way of life. |
The use of so called 'recreational drugs' like cannabis and ecstasy was undoubtedly widespread in the 1990's. In the 1994 British Crime Survey 42% of men and 30% of females aged between 20 and 24 indicated that they had used cannabis. (20) According to a 1996 Health Education Authority survey 78% of young people aged between 20 and 22 had been offered illegal drugs and 54% had taken them. (21)
Young people are often told that the greatest danger connected with drug taking is getting caught by the police. Those wishing to see cannabis decriminalised quote statistics like the above, arguing that the time and resources spent on prosecuting cannabis users could be used far more effectively in the battle against 'hard drugs.' The result is that defeatism is fostered among those involved in enforcing the law.
Ultimately,
possession of cannabis still constitutes a criminal offence. Most
people believe it should remain that way.
Top
Public Opinion:
The legal status of cannabis
Taking cannabis... 1995 |
% |
| should be legal, without restrictions | 6 |
| should
be legal, but it should only be available from licensed shops |
28 |
| should remain illegal | 64 |
Base 1221, Source : British Social Attitudes, The 13th Report, SCPR 1996, page 97
Other criminal activities are not presented to young people in such a value-neutral way (22). The mere discussion of legalisation suggests that the law is possibly unjustified, and further reduces the stigma rightly attached to it.
From 1985 to 1992 illegal drug use fell dramatically in the US. (See Figure 2). Peter Stoker of the National Drugs Prevention Alliance attributes this fall to the vigorous pursuit of drugs prevention policies. Things can be done, the problem can be tackled. A continuous rise in drug use is not inevitable.
National
Household Survey (NIDA) and High School Seniors
Drug Abuse Survey, University of Michigan
| 1979 | 1985 | 1988 | 1992 | |
| Any current illegal drug use | 24.3 | 23.0 | 14.5 | 11.4 |
| Current Marijuana Use | 22.5 | 18.2 | 11.6 | 9.0 |
| Current Cocaine Use | 4.3 | 5.8 | 2.9 | 1.3 |
| Any Teen Current Illicit Drug Use | 4.1 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 1.3 |
| The
figures are of users in millions. Current = Within past month. Since 1992 drug use has increased as drug prevention policies have been relaxed. (see text) Since the relaxation of these measures, drug use has increased. Between 1994 and 1995 there was a 33% increase in substance abuse among teenagers. Use of LSD and other hallucinogens alone rose 55% in the same one year period. (23). |
|
|
The Position In Other Countries
A number of countries have experimented with legalisation including Spain and Italy. Those arguing for reform claim that the policy of partial decriminalisation has been successful in Holland, asserting that there has been no great increase in cannabis use. The number of pot-purveying 'coffee shops' has, however, increased dramatically. According to John Malouf (33) up to 20% of the 'coffee shops' in some areas of Amsterdam were shut down in 1993 because of dealing in other drugs. A Dutch Government policy document published last year, following pressure from other EU member states, proposed that half of these 4,000 coffee shops should be closed, and "soft-drug users" should be allowed to possess no more than 5g (current limit 30g) . (34)
Decriminalisation
was introduced in Alaska in the early 1980's. In 1991 the people
of Alaska voted to recriminalize the drug after rising drug use
and drug-related crime. (35)
Top
Cannabis use is linked to...
- Cancer of mouth, jaw, tongue, and lung in 19-30 year olds (40) - Non-lymphoblastic leukeamia (41) Babies born to mothers who smoked marijuana during pregnancy have an ten-fold increase in non-lymphoblastic leukaemia. - Short term memory loss (with heavy use) (42) - Long term impairment of memory in adolescents(43) - Carcinoma of the tongue (with heavy use) (44) - Brain Damage in rats (45) - Schizophrenia (46) Marijuana smokers are six times more likely to develop schizophrenia than non-users. - Damage to foetuses (47) Marijuana smoking during pregnancy is associated with impaired foetal growth. - Reduction in sperm count and disruption of hormone cycles (48) - Mental confusion (49)(with prolonged use i.e. 6 months - 25 years). - Difficulties in communication, the ability to think logically and to maintain attention. - Depression and lack of motivation (50) - Prenatally exposed children are more likely to have problems including hyperactivity (51) and disturbed sleep (52) Disturbed nocturnal sleep at age 3 years. (53) Inattention, bad conduct, in 6-9 year olds. A deficit in sustained attention, verbal ability and memory of 5 and 6 year old children of marijuana users. (53) - Higher rates of school difficulties, conflict in the home, depression, low religiosity, early sexual experience, low parental influence and high peer influence. (54) - Lack of meaningfulness of life with sustained use. (55) - Psychosis (56) Moderate to heavy doses can produce psychotic symptoms in clear consciousness, especially auditory and visual hallucinations and persecutory delusions. - Damage to the immune system (57) Marijuana impairs the white blood cells which fight infection. |
Many people believe that cannabis is harmless. (36) Literature given to young people by drug organisations often seems to promote this view.
The following is an extract from a booklet published by Lifeline, a drug advisory organisation based in Manchester.
"The lethal dose of cannabis is a 2 kilo block dropped on your head from the 25th floor of a high rise building. In other words - cannabis can't kill you, it is not a poison like alcohol and not addictive like cigarettes. The more you smoke the more stoned you get. Carry on and you'll just fall asleep....
None of these harms are irreversible."
"The single biggest cannabis problem is the risk of being caught with it by the police. Whilst there is no cast iron evidence that cannabis does serious physical or psychological damage, a police record can ruin career prospects overnight."
"Cannabis has been smoked for pleasure for thousands of years. Nobody can predict what will happen to anybody who uses cannabis anymore that they can to anybody who doesn't. A lot of people who are now both parents grandparents smoked cannabis during the sixties and seventies...." (37)
So is there actually any scientific evidence that it is harmful?
At an international conference in 1992 scientists concluded:
'The toxicity of cannabis is well-established, experimentally and clinically. This drug adversely affects the central nervous system, the lung, immunity and reproductive functions.' (38)
An article in Policing Today cites the University of Mississippi as having a library of over 10,500 world-wide accredited research papers all giving evidence of the harmfulness of cannabis. (58) Much has come to light only recently. Those who argue for legalisation have yet to respond to this vast, growing body of evidence.
It is widely accepted by most involved in the legalisation debate that cannabis users can become psychologically dependent and are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and paranoia. (59)
People involved in counselling drug users know that physical addiction is often easier to deal with than psychological dependence.
Alcohol and tobacco can be used in small quantities without having such an impact on the user. Cannabis is smoked for one reason only, to get intoxicated.
One of the strongest arguments against legalisation is that cannabis use very often progresses to use of harder drugs. Once introduced to the drug culture buying other drugs becomes an easy matter. Hard drugs are very often available from the same 'pusher,' and young people like to experiment.
It
is claimed by some that cannabis should be legalised at the very
least for medical purposes. Peter Stoker lists nine major medical
organisations which have rejected cannabis as having any medicinal
value. (60) He also cites one leading
pro-pot activist as saying that the 'medical marijuana' argument
can be used 'to give pot a good name. (61)
Top
Conclusions
Legalisation would have disastrous effects. The sociologist Norman Dennis believes that "the normalisation of drug-taking,.. overwhelmingly will constitute the most serious problem for our society." (62)
It is ironic that at a time when drug-related crime is at a record level and local authorities are taking further measures to tackle public drunkenness (63) the legalisation of another harmful drug is being considered.
Alternatives to Legalisation
Instead of encouraging cannabis use (which legalisation most definitely would), we should use all possible means of drug prevention. Changing attitudes takes time. We need to :
- Re-educate people by creating drug advisory agencies that tell the truth about the consequences of cannabis. We must ensure that the literature about drugs does not trivialise or in any way glamorise drugs but instead emphasises the physical, psychological and social costs of drug taking (64)
- Enforce the present law more firmly and consistently. Currently, the widespread use of multiple cautioning emasculates the law. This should be ended. Only in exceptional circumstances should cautioning be used at all. Chief Constables should require their officers to treat possession and dealing as serious offences, given the harm it causes to individuals and the cost to society. A practice direction should be issued to the courts to require them to make use of the full range of sentences when it comes to drugs crimes. People should know that if they are caught with drugs it is very likely that they will be prosecuted and very likely that, if convicted, they will receive a substantial fine or a prison sentence.
- Separate "drug prevention" from "harm reduction". Money given for prevention should be used exclusively in prevention work. Groups that want to engage in harm reduction should declare that that is their approach, and be required to raise funds separately for that purpose.
- Re-stigmatise drugs, drug use and drug users. It presents no gain to society whatsoever for a person to escape from reality via drugs. It is a dishonest way to cope with life and it costs society in terms of reduced performance at work or in education, increased health charges and rising crime.
- Introduce an "Unexplained Wealth Act" requiring suspected drug-dealers to reveal where their money comes from or face having assets forfeited (65).
- Introduce minimum sentences for drugs related offences. Dealing should be punished particularly severely with a mandatory prison sentence. Fines for possession should be set at a level which is more than a mere nuisance, which seems to be the current practice. Repeat offenders should face harsher sentences. A sensible move might be a minimum prison sentence for, say, three drugs related offences in five years. Driving whilst under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol should be no alibi. It should attract much tougher sentences (66).
- Prisons Governors should be made accountable to the Home Secretary for enforcing an effective anti-drugs regime in every prison. A "drug-free-zone" policy should be facilitated by creating specific offences to deal more severely with those who smuggle drugs into prisons. Clear guide-lines for searching and testing all prisoners would complement this policy, as would designated "rehab" prisons which specialise in handling addict prisoners, getting them out of the mainstream system.
Acknowledgement : The author wishes to thank Peter Stoker, Director of the National Drug Prevention Alliance for helpful advice and encouragement in writing this article.
References
(1)
Substances of Abuse: Getting A Perspective a report of The Division
of Social Responsibility of the Methodist Church. 1995
(2)
Examples of MPs include Claire Short (The Daily Mail 17 August
1996) Alan Duncan (The Sunday Times 14 May 1995) and
Paul Flynn (Daily Mail 17 August 1996). Last year Paul Flynn
brought a Private Member's Bill, proposing the legalisation of cannabis
for medical use. It was defeated.
(3)
Emma Bonino was quoted as saying: "I believe that cannabis
should be able to be sold and used freely as it is in Holland."
The Daily Telegraph 10 October 1996
(4)
Raymond Kendall, has called for all drug use to be decriminalised.
(The Times 9 June 1994) (See also The Times 8 June
1995)
(5)
The Sunday Times 1 December 1996. Lord Woolf, Master of the
Rolls reportedly suggested in a speech on 12 October 1993 that it
is time to consider controlled legalisation of some drugs. The
Times 14 October 1993. Legalisation: For or Against Institute
for the Study of Drug Dependence 1995
(6)
The Times 24 July 1967
(7)
The Independent 31 October 1995
(8)
House of Lords Hansard 20 November 1996 Col 1255
(9)
Plant M Drugs In Perspective, London, Hodder and Stoughton,
1987
ISDD
Drug Misuse in Britain, London, 1994
(10)
Cannabis Drugs Notes 3, ISDD 1993
(11)
Loc Cit
(12)
Mill, J S Essay on Human Liberty. Cited in Classics of
Western Philosophy Ed. Cahn , S M Hackett Publishing
Company, Indianapolis 1990. Pages 1110 - 1111
(13)
See 2 above. The right-wing libertarian case for legalisation has
recently been expounded: Stevenson R in Winning The War On Drugs:
To Legalise Or Not? The Institute of Economic Affairs, London
1994.
(14)
Illegal Drugs: liberal and restrictive attitudes Gould, A;
Shaw, A; Ahrendt, D; British Social Attitudes: The 13th Report
SCPR 1996 page 106.
(15)
Ibid, page 111
(16)
Ibid, page 93
(17)
Ibid page 112
(18)
Ibid page 104
(19)
See for example Talking About Drugs a Channel 4 drugs information
video 1994
(20)
Drug misuse declared: results of the 1994 British Crime Survey,
Home Office Research Study 151. Pub 1996 Page 84
(21)
Drugs Realities, National Drugs Campaign Survey. Health Education
Authority 1996 Page 5
(22)
"When it comes to theft, burglary or violence we do not say
to young people you have a choice whether to participate or not;
we tell them 'no.' When it comes to the legal drug tobacco we also
tell them 'no', and for alcohol 'no' at certain ages/places. And
yet when it comes to street drugs a large number of people ostensibly
having a responsibility of care for young people are either sanguine
about or even facilitate a choice to use drugs." (Drugs
- Whose Choice Is It Anyway? Shiv Singh, National Drug Prevention
Alliance)
(23)
Figures are taken from the National Household Survey (NIDA) and
High School Seniors Drug Abuse Survey, University of Michigan. (As
cited in Brett M and Stoker P Thinking The Thinkable, Policing
Today February 1995.) and Preliminary Estimates from the 1995
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration Office of Applied Statistics,
Advance Report Number 18, August 1996, pages 2, 12
(24)
Romans 3 v 23
(25)
The Loss of Virtue - Moral Confusion and Social Disorder in Britain
and America, Ed Anderson, D The Social Affairs Unit 1992 Page xxvii
(26)
James 1 v 14,15
(27)
Ephesians 5 v 18
(28)
Proverbs 21 v 17; Proverbs 23 vv 20-21, 29-35; Isaiah 28 v 7.
(29)
1 Corinthians 6 v 19. See also Romans 12 v 1.
(30)
1 Thessalonians 5 v 6; 1 Peter 5 v 8
(31)
Ephesians 5 v 18
(32)
1 Timothy 3 v 3
(33)
Malouf J Should Marijuana Be Decriminalised? A paper written
for the Australian Medical Association. Mr Malouf is a former president
of the Society of Pharmacists, New South Wales.
(34)
The Times 1 November 1995 "Drug friendly nations taking
tougher line." The Lancet Vol 346 16 September 1995,
762
(35)
As Peter Stoker comments: "Faced with this incontrovertible
proof the police and other authorities enacted a swift repeal, returning
drug possession to the status it deserves as a negative influence
on society." Stoker P Harm Reduction and the Abuse of Liberty
Positive Prevention Plus, Berks 1994.
(36)The
Independent on the 28th January 1996 printed an article entitled:
'Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll: High Society: Heroin makes you rob
chemists at gun point. Cocaine gives you three nostrils and an overdraft.
Alcohol makes you makes you violent and stupid. Dope only makes
you want sex and chocolate. So why isn't it legal?"
(37)
Everything You Wanted To Know About Cannabis But Were Afraid
To Ask Your Kids. Lifeline, Manchester.(38)
Cannabis - Physiopathology, epidaemology detection. Proceedings
of 2nd International Symposium organised by the National Academy
of Medicine with the assistance of the City of Paris. April 8- 9
1992. Ed. Nahas G G and Latour C. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Ann Arbor,
London, Tokyo, 1993.
(39)
Sherman M P et al Effects of Smoking Marijuana, Tobacco or Cocaine
Alone or In Combination on DNA Damage In Human Alveolar Macrophages
Life Sciences, Vol. 56, No.s 23/24, pp. 2201-2207, 1995
(40)
Nahas G and Latour C The Human Toxicity of Marijuana Med
J Aust 1992; 156: 495-497
This
influential article has been criticised, but has been robustly defended
by the authors.
(41)
Robison L L et al Cancer 63:1904-1910, 1989
(42)
Block R I and Ghoneim M M Effects of Chronic Marijuana Use on
Human Cognition Psychopharmacology (1993) 110 : 219-228
(43)
Nahas G and Latour C The Human Toxicity of Marijuana Med
J Aust 1992; 156: 495-497
(44)
Caplin G A et al Marijuana Smoking and Carcinoma of the Tongue:
Is there an association? Cancer 66: 1005-1006, 1990
(45)
Rubio P et al Long-Term Behavioural Effects of Perinatal Exposure
To D9 - Tetrahydrocannabinol In Rats: Possible Role Of Pituitary-Adrenal
Axis Life Sciences, Vol. 56, No.s 23-24, pp. 2169-2176, 1995
(46)
Andreasson S et al Cannabis and Schizophrenia. A Longitudinal
Study of Swedish Conscripts Lancet 2 : 1483-1485 1987
Martinez-Arevalo, M J et al Cannabis Consumption as a Prognostic
Factor in Schizophrenia British Journal of Psychiatry (1994),
164, 679-681
(47) Zuckerman B et al The Effects
Of Maternal Marijuana and Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth N Engl
J Med 1989; 320: 762-768.
(48) Gold M S Marijuana NY: Plenum
Med Bk Co pp 69-71
(49) Lundqvist T Specific Thought
Patterns in Chronic Cannabis Smokers Observed During Treatment Life
Sciences, Vol. 56, No.s 23/24, pp.2141-2144, 1995
(50) Musty R E and Kaback L Relationships
Between Motivation and Depression In Chronic Marijuana Users Life
Sciences, Vol. 56, No.s 23/24, pp. 2151-2158, 1995. This
study establishes a clear link between cannabis use and depression.
It does not establish which comes first.
(51) Fried P A The Ottawa Prenatal
Prospective Study (OPPS): Methodological Issues And Findings
- It's Easy To Throw The Baby Out With The Bath Water Life
Sciences, Vol. 56, No.s 23/24, pp. 2159-2168, 1995
(52) Dahl R E et al A Longitudinal
Study of Prenatal Marijuana Use Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;
149: 145-150
(53)
Fried P A Prenatal Exposure to Marijuana and Tobacco During Infancy,
Early and Middle Childhood : Effects and an Attempt at Synthesis
Arch Toxicol Suppl 1995; 17: 233-60
(54) See studies cited in Cornelius
M D et al Prenatal Tobacco and Marijuana Use Among Adolescents
: Effects on Offspring Gestational Age, Growth, and Morphology
Paediatrics Vol. 95 No. 5 May 1995
(55) Lundqvist T Chronic Cannabis
Use And The Sense of Coherence Life Sciences Vol. 56, No.s23/24,
pp. 2145-2150, 1995
(56) Thornicroft G Cannabis and
Psychosis Is there Epidemiological Evidence for an Association?
British Journal of Psychiatry (1990), 157, 25-33
(57) Spector S Lancz G Adv Exp
Med Bio 288: 47-56 1991; Djeu J et al Adv Exp Med Biology
288: 57-62 1991; Watzl B et al Adv Exp Med Biology 288: 63-70
1991; Cabral G et al R.. Adv Exp Med Bio 288: 93-105 1991
(58) Brett M and Stoker P Thinking
the Thinkable, Policing Today February 1995
(59) Drug Capsule 3: Cannabis,
ISDD, 1995
See also Cannabis Drug Notes 3, ISDD 1993: "Regular
users can come to feel a psychological need for the drug or may
rely on it as a 'social lubricant.': it is not unknown for people
to use cannabis so frequently that they are almost constantly 'under
the influence.'...A heavy user chronically intoxicated on cannabis
may appear apathetic, lack energy, and perform poorly at their work
or education."
(60) Brett M and Stoker P Thinking
the Thinkable Policing Today, February 1995 lists the
following organisations which reject cannabis as having any medical
value:
The British Multiple Sclerosis Society
The American Medical Association
Cancer Society
MS Society
The Institute of Ophthalmology
The Institute of Oncology
The National Eye Institute
The Glaucoma Society
The Institute of Neurological Disorders
(61) Stoker P Legalisation - The
Fool's Gold
(62) Dennis N Who's Celebrating
What?, The Christian Institute, 1995, page 15
(63) The Independent 7 September
1996
(64) We should also resist calls
to relax the guidelines relating to the depiction of drug-use on
television. The present guidelines prohibit the promotion of drug-taking
as a normal activity. The Times 27 August 1996
(65) This was suggested by Chief
Inspector Tony Doyle, head of the Merseyside Police Drug Squad,
at the ACPO conference in Dunblane. The Scotsman 26 October
1996
(66) In 1994 a teenage driver who
killed a 25-year-old man in a hit-and-run accident whilst under
the influence of cannabis was sentenced to four years' youth custody.
This appears to be a typical sentence. The Times 9 June 1994
Top
Copyright © The Christian Institute All Rights Reserved
Registered office: The Christian Institute, Wilberforce House, 4 Park Road, Gosforth Business Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE12 8DG
Tel: 0191 281 5664. Fax: 0191 281 4272 Email: info@christian.org.uk Internet: http://www.christian.org.uk
The Christian Institute is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England as a charity. Company No. 263 4440 Charity No. 100 4774
A charity registered in Scotland. Charity No. SC039220
This content requires the Adobe Flash Player. Download Adobe Flash Player here.