Media/News > Press Releases > 26.07.07

Cannabis health risks should not lead to knee jerk policy making

The Lancet today (Friday 27 July, embargoed 00.01 Friday 27 July) publishes a meta-analysis of studies on cannabis and psychosis, suggesting an increased risk for cannabis users. Transform Drug Policy Foundation, the UK's leading centre of expertise on drug policy reform, cautions that we should interpret the data carefully, and not leap to draconian law enforcement responses. Martin Blakeborough, member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, advises against another review of its classification.

A Transform spokesperson said:

“We should always be careful interpreting research data, but even more careful when we translate it into policy and law. There is a real danger that knee-jerk reactions to ill-informed drug panics can lead to bad policy that will actually increase drug related harms rather than decrease them.

“All drugs have potential dangers and all drug use involves risk, but a balanced assessment of the evidence and a proper understanding of these risks is needed for an appropriate public health response to minimise them. The Lancet paper suggests that, using Danish data translated into UK use, 14% of psychotic outcomes are related to cannabis use, and that the risk of psychotic outcome is increased by 40% by cannabis use.

“It is important however, to see this in the context of a small number of psychotic outcomes overall. The paper estimates 800 avoidable cases a year, relative to a large total population of users, 6.2 million in the UK by their estimates. This translates into a 0.00125% risk, or put another way, less than 1 in 6000. Even a doubling of these figures, whilst sounding dramatic, is still a very small number in overall population terms

“To put this in perspective these risks should be seen in the context of risks associated with tobacco, which has 11 million dependent users in the UK, 50% of whom will die prematurely as a result of their addiction, and alcohol, associated with 20,000 premature deaths a year, as well as rapidly escalating levels of youth liver cirrhosis. Alcohol is also associated with psychotic illness amongst long term users, at a higher level than cannabis, a fact that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in political or media discourse.

“We must remember that the Iron Law of Prohibition is operating here. This law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. It is prohibition that is responsible for the increasing prevalence of the more potent and potentially riskier strains of cannabis on the market today: they command a higher price per unit weight, so illicit markets a re pushed toward ever more concentrated versions of the drugs. A similar pattern was seen under alcohol prohibition with the increasing prevalence of spirits, and also with the prohibition driven emergence of crack cocaine and injectable opiates.

“Illicit markets also maximise the harms associated with use of cannabis. Users are not able to make informed decisions as they do not know the strength of the product they are using, and it does not come with the heath warnings and safety advice that we see with legally regulated drugs.”

“Transform supports the call for better health education for young people about the dangers of drug use and cannabis specifically, and are pleased to note that there is no suggestion in the paper that this is best achieved through reclassification to class B, and mass criminalisation of millions of young people, especially those with mental health problems. We must accept the reality that a significant minority of young people will choose to use cannabis whatever the government says, and responses should be based on evidence of what is effective at reducing harms based on established public health principles.”

Martin Blakeborough, Director of the Kaleidescope Project and member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs added:

“The ACMD have had two reviews which have both recommended that cannabis be placed in Class C. It would be a waste of public money for the same panel, with the same evidence to review this once more. When one looks at the classification issue it is clear that the most important review needed is that on ecstacy which is artificially placed in class A. This creates a serious anomaly which makes a mockery of the entire classification process to young people. There is significant danger in reviewing cannabis again, as it takes experts minds off more important issues. Classification itself, although important, is not as urgent as the increasing epidemic of Hepatitis B and C among drug users and the wider community, or the increase of stimulant drugs in our community. Can we please put an end to the scaremongering on cannabis and attend to the more pressing health and social problems related to the misuse of illegal drugs."

ENDS

Contact

Danny Kushlick, Director: 07970 174747
Steve Rolles, Information Officer: 07980 213943
Martin Blakeborough: 07984 032551

Notes for Editors

The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/clusters/thelancet/press_office/cannabis.pdf

Cannabis reclassification revisited
the Advisory council looked again at cannabis reclassification, at the request of the Home Secretary. TDPF has made its consultation briefing available here.

Cannabis reclassification
Examines the political and policing issues around the decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug at the end of January 2004.

How the Independent got it horribly wrong on cannabis:
debunking the various strands of the latest cannabis panic

The Iron Law of Prohibition
The most notable of those consequences has been labelled the "Iron Law of Prohibition" by Richard Cowan. That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints. The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.