Pubdate: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 Source: Observer, The (UK) Copyright: 2002 The Observer Contact: http://www.observer.co.uk/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/315 Authors: Rev Sue Nightingale, Alexander Kasterine PhD, Robert Sharpe, Dr Andrew Wilski, Dr Daniel O'Toole TIME TO WEED OUT MTYHS AND MISINFORMATION As the mother of a young man whose mental health has been severely damaged by smoking too much cannabis, it was good to have some facts (Comment, last week) I watch a talented young man who has smoked pot for some years, struggle to remember names, the days of the week and to distinguish between his private world and that of those around him. He has had to suspend his university studies. He believes that taking olanzapine, a new drug which has helped him considerably, will reduce his creativity. Taking pot on the other hand, he thinks, will improve it. Aldous Huxley and Timothy Leary have a lot to answer to. Rev Sue Nightingale Sheriff Hutton Yorks - -------------------------------------- Professor Greenfield is right to seriously question health effects of cannabis use. However, her argument against the drug's gradual decriminalisation is far from convincing. Prohibition of drugs in general has made drug production and supply into one of the largest trades in the world, the profits of which are almost wholly enjoyed by criminal gangs. The socio-economic effect of prohibition are well documented. It is not for one citizen to make moral judgment about other people's lifestyles which do not cause them any harm (unless you include passive smoking in the equation). Rather, society can leave recreational activities to their wont and, for addicts, provide the appropriate counselling and medical treatment, just as with any other sickness. Alexander Kasterine PhD Brussels - ------------------------------------ Susan Greenfield is confused if she thinks the principal argument for cannabis law reform is that the plant is relatively harmless. Decriminalisation acknowledges the social reality of cannabis use and frees users from the stigma of life-shattering criminal records. What is really need is a regulated market with age controls. Separating the hard and soft drug markets is critical. Given that cannabis is arguably safer than legal alcohol - the plant has never been shown to cause an overdose death - it makes no sense to waste tax revenue on failed policies that finance organised crime and facilitate the use of hard drugs. Robert Sharpe Programme officer Drug Policy Alliance Washington DC - -------------------------------------- Anyone sensible should take seriously Professor Greenfield's warnings about cannabis. After 30 years working as a psychiatrist I am convinced that cannabis is a most dangerous illegal drug and it is impossible to predict who will experience one or more of its psychopathological effects or when, namely depression, loss of motivation to get on with life, psychosis and aggressiveness. The young, at least at the back of their minds, must be aware of the dangers as one of the names they have given to cannabis is 'shit'. Dr Andrew Wilski Consultant psychiatrist Pembury Hospital Tunbridge Wells Kent - -------------------------------------- For Susan Greenfield to state that marijuana usage alters the connections between neurons is a little ingenious. As a neuroscientist Dr Greenfield is, I'm sure, aware that just about anything can effect these connections. and is she suggesting since marijuana cause laziness, it should therefore be illegal? Is being lazy a crime now? I'm sure we agree that research in this area is sadly lacking. Dr Daniel O'Toole Dept of Pharmacology, UCD Dublin - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart