The police are ignoring the evidence

What is the Garda Commissioner Mr. Pat Byrne on? The question occurred to me whilst reading an article headlined GARDA CHIEF WARNS AGAINST LEGALISING CANNABIS in the Irish Times recently, in which the Commissioner was quoted as saying things that made very little sense in the light of recent events in Geneva, of which he must surely be aware.
I mean, less than a month after New Scientist magazine broke the story about the World Health Organisation s suppression of a major study into the effects of cannabis, Mr. Byrne seems to have completely forgotten about it! There has to be some natural explanation for his apparent short-term memory deficiency. Then again, maybe not . . .
Speaking last week at an American Chamber of Commerce Ireland lunch in Cork, the Commissioner attacked commentators who criticise the use of Garda resources seizing cannabis worth millions of pounds as being wasteful. He went on to describe such commentators as seeming clear in their objective: They promote a supposed soft drug as being harmless and advise the gardai to concentrate on heroin or drugs perceived as being more dangerous. A supposed soft drug? Perceived as being more dangerous? What kind of nonsense is this?
Surely the Commissioner was aware of the conclusion of the WHO report: namely, that cannabis while not completely harmless is far safer than both alcohol and tobacco? This was not a claim being made by Howard Marks or by Irving Welsh or even by Olaf Tyaransen. It was a conclusion being independently arrived at by the World Health Organisation.
The two-year study undertaken by that organisation determined that in the long term, cannabis has fewer ill effects on health than either alcohol or tobacco in five out of seven categories, and carries only a marginally higher risk in the other two. For example, while heavy drinking leads to liver damage, severe brain injury and a greatly increased risk of accidents and suicides, the report concludes that there is only suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning. It also noted that in developed societies, cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol.
Cannabis didn t get a completely clean bill of health. Two other comparisons between alcohol and herb were more equivocal. It was noted that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people (though only alcohol produces a well-defined withdrawal syndrome ). It was also pointed out that chronic cannabis smoking may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract.
Despite this, the analysis concluded not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as they currently do these legal substances.
Given the extent to which the conclusions of the report undermine the entire basis of the global prohibitionist policy on the use of cannabis, it s hardly surprising that the World Health Organisation came under intense political pressure from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme. Shamefully, they caved in, and attempted to suppress the report.
According to Dr. Billy Martin a member of the expert panel and a fellow of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond the WHO officials went nuts when they saw the draft report. Another member of the expert team pointed out that, In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation.
However, the leaked version of the excluded section of the report explains that the reason for making the comparisons was not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis. Is anybody out there listening?
In its editorial, New Scientist points out that, despite the anti-dope propaganda that circulates in the US, most people are thankfully well aware that no great social disaster has befallen the Netherlands, where cannabis has been sold openly in coffee shops for years. It goes on to say: Only the politicians still seem irrationally terrified by the idea of any relaxation of the law: they think they can continue lumping all drugs together.
Unfortunately, given Commissioner Byrne s comments last week, it would appear that it s not just the politicians who seem irrationally terrified by any potential change in our drug laws it s the police as well. You d expect that sort of rhetorical posturing from the likes of the Minister for Justice, John O Donoghue, but one would have thought that the Chief of Police would welcome a more relaxed approach to cannabis use. After all, the task of upholding the current prohibition completely overburdens his force, as well as the courts and the prisons (all at an excessive cost to the taxpayer).
A change in the current laws which should never have been there in the first place! would free up resources desperately needed to tackle serious crime and also put an end to the criminalisation of the growing number of otherwise law-abiding Irish citizens whose only crime is enjoying a smoke. Does Pat Byrne want this to happen? It would appear not at the same lunch he opined that the decriminalisation of cannabis was not something which society should embrace as a core value. (Whatever that means Ed).
What is most disturbing in all this is the hopelessly entrenched and blinkered siege mentality that it seems to reflect. I thought that policemen were supposed to base their judgements on the evidence.
Instead Commissioner Byrne is ignoring the single most important and telling piece of new evidence in relation to cannabis in years.
It is, when you think about it, quite extraordinary that he can get away with it. n