Sue Arnold is a highly-respected British journalist with liberal views. When I lived in the UK during the early '80s I, along with tens of thousands of others, was a devotee of her weekly column in The Observer. Although almost four decades have gone by, I still remember vividly the Sunday she sprang the news on an unsuspecting readership that she was virtually blind due to a genetic eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa.
Occasionally she smoked cannabis. In 1997, she published an article in the Observer revealing that she had smoked ‘skunk’ at a dinner party. Skunk is the most potent form of cannabis available, and Sue's eyesight had improved dramatically for the short period she was under its influence. Unfortunately for her, the joint also had an inebriating effect, rendering her ‘legless’ and almost unable to speak. http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/212301.stm
Not surprisingly, Arnold became a vociferous champion for the use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, initially campaigning for research to be done to isolate the cannabinoid which gave her back her eyesight for those few precious minutes, from the rest of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which produces the stoning effect. Eventually, she broadened the scope of her articulate support for a change in attitudes to the legalisation of cannabis for both therapeutic and recreational purposes.
As is well known, the British Government was, at the time, planning to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug (on the same level as steroids and sedatives). Initially this would have meant that personal use would no longer make one liable to prosecution. But the medical establishment and drug workers warned that the effect of this move would be an increase in drug use, with all the consequences this would entail. Stung by the strength of the reaction, the British Government had decided to go ahead with the downgrading, but continued to consider possession of cannabis illegal.
All those who had been following the debate about the decriminalisation of cannabis expected Sue Arnold to come out with a partial endorsement of the proposals to liberalise the law. But, on the 18th January 2004, Arnold wrote an article in the Observer announcing that she was no longer in favour of the use of cannabis. What had brought about the astounding change of heart was the damage cannabis had wreaked on something more precious to her than her own eyesight: the well-being of one of her sons.
Some years before, this young man had suffered a psychotic episode precipitated by the use of cannabis. He had spent six months in a psychiatric facility in England, and had been discharged on medication which, the family was told, he would probably have to remain on for the rest of his life. Sue Arnold had seen for herself that those who warned about the serious ill-effects of cannabis were not simply reactionary killjoys bent on maintaining a repressive legal regime unnecessarily, but had very solid arguments to back up their stance http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/18/drugsandalcohol.society
The belief that besides increasing the chances of contracting lung cancer and emphysema, cannabis use can be responsible for triggering psychosis in susceptible individuals has gained momentum. Researchers at Yale University have concluded that THC can produce a psychotic reaction. years ago, Dr. Robin Murray, a senior psychiatrist at Maudsley Hospital warned that smoking dope can greatly increase one’s chances of becoming mentally ill - and can also aggravate existing psychotic symptoms. The Psychiatric Times has reviewed the evidence and concluded that in regions cannabis becomes more accessible, cases of cannabis-induced psychosis are expected to increase: Cannabis-Induced Psychosis: A Review (psychiatrictimes.com).
How can we ever express our gratitude, Robert Abela? Owen Bonnici deserves a monument. Come next Republic Day, the cannabis lobby should be collectively decorated.
In Malta, the lobby for the relaxation of the laws regulating cannabis possession and use has won the day. Dope’s apparent and relative harmlessness, the difficulty to enforce the law (as evidenced by the widespread use of the drug among the young and not so young), and personal freedom are presented as arguments for its legalisation. But the inevitable rise in consumption of cannabis - when it becomes legal - and the dangers it poses to mental health, for at least a proportion of users, should have made us think twice before we let ourselves be convinced by the glib arguments of the ‘liberal’ lobby and the government's thirst for revenue - and votes.
At the very least, the government should take on the board the 53 NGOs' recommendations.
We do not have to go through Sue Arnold’s heartbreaking experience in order to realise what good sense dictates. Even at one second to midnight.
The British government has since reclassified cannabis as a class B drug.
No comments:
Post a Comment