Cannabis: how dangerous is it?
The recent case of Billy Caldwell – the young epilepsy sufferer who had his supply of cannabis oil confiscated by the authorities – has been a godsend for the pro-legalisation lobby, said Ross Clark in The Spectator. It perfectly fits their narrative of a “demented prohibitionist policy”. Look, they cry: the cannabis ban isn’t just “taking the fun out of rock festivals”, it’s “killing kids as well”. Don’t be fooled. There’s a very good reason why cannabis oil isn’t currently licensed as a treatment for epilepsy, which is that “there is not, as yet, good scientific evidence for its efficacy”. A few trials have shown that THC – the compound in cannabis that makes you high – can reduce seizures, but others suggest that it can increase them. Billy’s mother and others may swear by the oil, but regulators “don’t license medicines on the basis of anecdote”.
Billy’s case doesn’t justify any rush to legalise recreational cannabis, said Patrick Cockburn in The Independent. Any lifting of restrictions would send the signal that it is a low-risk drug, which it is anything but: studies show there is a causal link between cannabis and psychosis. Those who smoke it regularly are four times as likely to develop schizophrenia as non-users. Yet people continue to think of cannabis as “relatively benign”. We need a sustained campaign to persuade people of all ages that “cannabis can send them insane”.
The Home Office often cites the effect of cannabis on mental health as a reason for banning it, said Ian Hamilton in the same newspaper. But the science is “messy”: if schizophrenics smoke a lot of dope, it may be because it alleviates their symptoms rather than causes them. New research shows that cannabis – along with MDMA (ecstasy) and psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms – could be used to treat depression and people suffering from psychological trauma. The problem is that the Government makes it intentionally difficult for researchers to work with drugs of this kind, yet it’s the researchers who should be ruling on what is safe and what isn’t. We need to take the politics out of this issue, agreed Gary Stephens on The Conversation. It’s time for large-scale clinical trials to provide “definitive” answers.