"Dangerous Drugs" - House of Commons debates reclassification

Mr. Letwin: I was about to end my speech, but I will of course give way to the Chairman of the Committee.

David Winnick: I am grateful. If it is only the Home Secretary and his team who are in favour of these proposals, why is it that when the matter came before the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee divided on the motion:

"We do not, therefore, support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug"

only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who has just put her hand up, voted for it? The other Conservative Members did not. If there is no logic in what the Home Secretary is doing, why is it that not all the Conservative Members on the Committee voted with the hon. Lady for that motion?

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to ask them, not me. I am very clear in my mind—and I think that over time the British public will be very clear—that this is not a sustainable system. There are hon. Members in the House who see this as a stepping stone on the way to full legalisation. I can understand their logic, although I think that the number of young people who will suffer on the way is intolerable. However, the Minister does not even make that argument. She has not even made the argument that this is the greatest political courage the Government can currently summon up on their way to full legalisation. I think that she has not made that argument because the Home Secretary does not believe in it—I think that he believes that this is a resting point, and a popular resting point. That is irresponsible.

Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time for the debate is limited and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

2.34 pm

John Mann (Bassetlaw): If I were to be persuaded by one of the arguments—I am sad to see that, entirely inappropriately on an issue such as this, there are three-line Whips all round the place—the Government's argument is not the one that would persuade me.

I remind myself that in any vote in this place it is important to look at the text and the substance of the vote rather than the arguments posed, and at the heart of this debate is the question, why cannabis? Why is there this obsession with cannabis? I surmise that probably it is because it is the only illegal drug that a majority of Members have sampled in the past and therefore feel most competent to speak about. However, cannabis is not the only drug used by Members—tobacco is used far more widely, and I confidently predict that the main drug that will have been misused by Members is alcohol.

The Swedish policy on drugs for young people is straightforward. It does not differentiate in any way between behaviour in respect of alcohol or of cannabis, because the health risks are increasingly evident, and are great, from both. Where the Government have failed, with a good opportunity—

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) rose—

John Mann: I wish to develop my argument, but then I will give way.

The Government have failed to take the opportunity to reclassify all class B drugs, not just cannabis. There is no logic that says that amphetamines and methamphetamines should be class B rather than class A. They are the main drugs in respect of criminal behaviour and hard drugs in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and they are spreading across America. Therefore, they should be in class A.

That codeine is a class B drug is also nonsensical. The main problem with opiates in New Zealand comes from over-the-counter codeine-based prescription drugs that people then bake and turn into morphine. The Government and their advisory council have got themselves into a bit of mess, and a presentational mess, by picking out cannabis as opposed to all the class B drugs, and instead of reclassifying and removing class B drugs.

We should have three classifications of drugs. The first should be hard drugs—drugs that in themselves will seriously damage health and may kill, and the taking of which leads to criminal behaviour. For example, the taking of amphetamines and crack cocaine leads to a range of criminal behaviours, including violent crime. With heroin, because of the nature of the addiction, the result is acquisitive crime. That should be the first classification—hard drugs that lead to both ill health and crime.

The second classification should be illegal drugs such as anabolic steroids. In the headlines tomorrow and in the playgrounds of Britain, the talk will be not about cannabis, but about another class C drug: anabolic steroids, and the decision made or not made by the Football Association today on the use of, or the avoidance by top sportsmen of testing for, anabolic steroids. We call those drugs class C at the moment. They should be, and can be, called soft drugs—the taking of which does not lead to criminal behaviour, but will cause a serious health problem. Cannabis is one—the new and hydroponic forms of cannabis, skunk in particular, even more so. Anabolic steroids, and things like codeine, should similarly be class C drugs.

The final classification of drugs should be tobacco and, in particular, alcohol. Tobacco kills millions, and alcohol—which, in terms of drug misuse, causes greater policing problems and probably greater criminal activity than any other single drug—is, of course, misused more by Members and by the general public than any other drug.

Those should be the three classifications, and the Government should get out of the muddle of having classes A, B and C by removing class B.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his case. He has accidentally misled the House about the position in Sweden, where they take a tough line on alcohol abuse, as he said, and on binge drinking. They also regard all cannabis taking as illegal, while the moderate and sensible consumption of alcohol is legal. The Swedish model seems very successful to Conservative Members.

John Mann: For young people, the Swedish model is the same as that in this country—the taking of alcohol by young people is illegal. As regards health, in Sweden they have in-patient detox. Conservative policy on rehabilitation is based on the Swedish model. Regardless of whether it is cannabis, alcohol or any other drug, if people are taking drugs irresponsibly and have health problems they are automatically sectioned. They are put into detox centres compulsorily and treatment follows.

That is a good model and we could develop it here. It will be difficult to sell to the British people the idea that young people who are falling over in the streets because of excess alcohol consumption should be treated on an in-patient basis for five days in a secure detox centre. We are a stage away from taking the general public with us.

An improved classification of drugs that identifies alcohol as a major problem along with other drugs is fundamental.

Pete Wishart : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we should be expanding the classification of bands of drugs? Does he share my concern that when ecstasy is a class A drug along with heroin and cocaine, that exaggerates the danger of taking ecstasy while diminishing the danger of heroin and cocaine? We must have a classification system that is credible to young people. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in his equation.

John Mann: We need to have a system that is credible to young people, but an expanded litany of classifications will confuse them. I have talked to young people in my constituency—it is not just 40 or 50 per cent of them using cannabis; in most of the schools in my constituency recreational use of cannabis is 100 per cent. among 16-year-olds. It is the main drug of recreational use, even more than alcohol. The reason is the price. At the moment, it is much cheaper than alcohol and much more easily available. That has some serious health consequences, and it is the health issues that we need to address.

Will we treat young people as fools? There are 600 heroin addicts in my constituency. I have mothers whose sons have died from overdoses and constituents whose brothers have hung themselves because of heroin. I am not soft on drugs. We try to suggest to young people that these drugs are all the same and that they should say no to drugs. Say no to which drugs? We do not mean alcohol, because that is legal at 18. The problem is that drugs will create health problems, and some drugs will create far more than that. That is why in my constituency there are 600 heroin addicts whose lives have been ruined—although increasing numbers are in treatment, I am pleased to say. There were 12 deaths from overdoses last year, there are mothers who fear the deaths of their sons, and there are individuals who fear for their own health and lives and who do not see such a separation or difference in the drugs market.

We need to separate the drugs market in people's eyes. That is not a weakening of drugs policy. I appeal to my colleagues who are thinking of voting against that model to look at the detail and think of the precision—rather than a weakening of drugs policy, it is a clarification and a strengthening. If we can move on from our obsession with cannabis, we can deal with the fact that treatment for those addicted to class A drugs remains wholly inadequate compared with the rest of the world, and we are only slowly getting people into effective treatment.

I will not take up the time of the House. I will write to hon. Members to expand on my views and my experience of how what we are doing in Bassetlaw with a GP-led treatment procedure is beginning to work. That is the model that should be used in the rest of the country. That should be the mainstay of drugs debate in this House.

2.44 pm

Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester): I will try to be brief as a number of hon. Members wish to speak. It is a pity that we have only an hour and a half to debate such a fundamental issue, because we could have expanded many of the arguments during a longer debate. That said, I welcome today's opportunity because the Liberal Democrats have argued for many years that we should at least have a grown-up debate on drugs in this Chamber. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to move away from focus groups to an evidence-based approach, having heeded the work of the Home Affairs Committee, the advisory groups, and the Runciman committee. Our view is that although there are issues about the way the Government plan to operate the process, we will support them this afternoon because what is on offer is a step in the right direction.
The Liberal Democrat party has been a lone voice for far too long arguing that drugs policy should be reconsidered and, over the years, we have received horrendous press headlines when we have talked about the subject. At last the Government now seem prepared to face up to some of these hard issues, as do many Conservative Members, in particular the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has very progressive views. It is members of the public, not politicians, who also need to face up to those issues. Five or 10 years ago, they may not have been prepared to consider decriminalisation or legalisation but now they are very engaged with the problem indeed. I am talking about parents in particular. They do not want to be hard on drugs; they want the right policy in place to tackle what they see as a growing problem.

The extent of that problem has been acknowledged by the report of the European drugs monitoring centre, to which reference has already been made, which shows that this country has the biggest problem in Europe, but that we also have some of the toughest laws. Clearly, our policy is not working. That is why I say to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that it is important that we engage in this debate. The status quo is clearly not satisfying the public demand that we should tackle the issue and that approach is causing major difficulties on the streets.

The Minister's remarks are important because she stressed that the proposed change does not represent a softening-up on drugs. That is important for two reasons. First, we have to send a strong message that if we reclassify, the gain to be had is that we will get much tougher on the harder drugs and the dealers. That strong message must come through. It must be coupled with strong education aimed at our youngsters about the harm caused by harder drugs. Secondly, we should not allow this to be seen as a green light for taking cannabis. It is important that we get that message across, too. The Liberal Democrats support that approach.

Mr. Letwin: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about an evidence-based approach and the growing problem—that is common ground—will he agree that there is something wrong with his policy if cannabis and hard drugs use is increasing rather than diminishing two or three years after the proposals have been enacted?

Mr. Oaten: Absolutely. I have no problem with that. We have learned from the approach that has been taken in Lambeth and that has informed this debate. Similarly, we will want to learn from this experiment. I think that there could be a number of outcomes. As has been said, moving towards some form of legalisation may be the way forward. The evidence may well suggest that we have all got it wrong and we need to think again. One option that is not acceptable is a do-nothing approach. However, I certainly support the idea that we should reconsider the matter in two years' time.
On a cautionary note, which contradicts the approach that the Liberal Democrat party has taken, there is a slight danger of our taking a middle-class approach—that of The Guardian or The Independent reader. On some estates and in some areas the arguments that are being propounded do not make any sense.

Three years ago, I spent 24 hours in a drug rehabilitation centre—not for personal reasons, but because I was interested. I went in my jeans and T-shirt and I slept the night. No one knew who I was—one of the advantages of being a Liberal Democrat is that one can go under cover. None of the 17 folk I chatted to, who had serious drugs problems, favoured the legalisation of cannabis or relaxing the law on cannabis. I had gone in there with my cosy and comfortable upbringing, thinking that that was the solution. I left with some serious doubts and I have struggled with them. However, I have looked at the evidence and I have listened to some of the arguments that have been put forward. I have come to the conclusion that this re-classification is a step in the right direction.

I want to consider some of the arguments. Let us deal first with the critical argument about whether the proposal will result in a redirection of resources to dealing with hard drugs. The Minister could have told us more about that, and I would have welcomed hearing more about how the Government want to redirect police time. We did not hear enough about that. At the moment, 40,000 individuals are apprehended, which involves a lot of police time. If there is a fall in the number of those apprehended, where will the resources then be spent?

In Lambeth, for example, there was a 44 per cent. increase in arrests for cocaine—good news—and a 10 per cent increase in tracking trafficking, good news. If that can be replicated across the country, the policy change will have been a good move. About 85 per cent. of residents in Lambeth supported such a change—[Interruption]—the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) should let me develop this point—but there were some difficulties. Certain individuals came into the area, and there was some increased drug use. It seems to me, as a layman, that that happened probably because it was a pilot site and that there would not be a flood of such individuals going to a certain area if the proposal were rolled out nationally.

Research done by Rowntree shows that it believes that the police time spent on dealing with cannabis costs about £50 million, which represents about 500 full-time police officers. I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to shift those resources to get tough on harder drugs.

Let us briefly deal with whether such a change will act as green light and increase the number of individuals using cannabis. At the moment, about half of 16-year-olds have tried cannabis at some time, so we already have a bad situation. If that figure was perhaps 10 or 15 per cent., there would be some interest in arguing that the change would send a green light and there would be a flood of yet more individuals taking cannabis. However, we seem to have a problem already, and it is unlikely that the change will increase usage. In fact, lots of the evidence from other countries shows that reclassification does not significantly increase the number people who suddenly decide that they will take cannabis.
Let us touch on the health issue—and we all know the arguments that have been made. It is not my place to consider in depth the scientifically based evidence, but I am happy to buy it, and I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged some of mental health concerns. However, we need more research on that issue.

Caroline Flint: I understand that there will be no winding-up speeches, so I will take a note and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman, but it is our absolute desire that such work will concentrate on class A drugs. That is why we are tackling the criminal justice interventions programme and identifying those people who commit crime who have a class A drugs problem, so that we can break that cycle. We will monitor what happens after reclassification and work with police forces and the crime reduction and disorder partnerships to ensure that we get some results on which we can report.

Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention because that evidence is crucial if we are to persuade the public that this is the right shift.

I have most difficulty with the gateway argument. I entirely understand the concerns that hon. Members have raised about access to dealers. I too struggle with that issue. Again, the evidence suggests, however, that about 50 per cent. of cannabis used is home grown, so the exposure to dealers is becoming limited. We need to consider two key arguments to tackle the gateway to drugs.

First, we can reduce the move to the next, harder drug by using this opportunity to have a serious, mature and grown-up debate with youngsters about the harm done by those drugs, so that youngsters then fear them. We can have that debate because if we are prepared to be honest and upfront about the dangers associated with cannabis, youngsters are more likely to believe us when we talk about some of the harder drugs. Again, evidence from the Netherlands suggests that that gateway to harder drugs has just not materialised.

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): I refer the hon. Gentleman to an excellent research document, produced by DrugScope, entitled, "Cannabis and the Gateway Hypothesis", and I shall read this paragraph from that document:

"Gateway theory is often misunderstood. It is not about cannabis leading to harder drugs, it is about common profiles, environment, experience and access."

Mr. Oaten: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I met representatives of DrugScope on Monday, and they made that very point to me.
Having supported the thrust of the Government's proposals, I want to probe them a little more—I accept that the Minister may not be able to respond formally, but I would appreciate a response in writing—about why they have decided to link reclassification with changes to the power of arrest and sentences. At no point did the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggest that the proposals should be linked with new powers of arrest or increased sentences. In fact, that was not mentioned in the Government's drug strategy and, as far as I am aware, the Government have consulted no one about that, other than the police. That is an error because there are knock-on consequences.
Liberal Democrat Members are concerned that those changes will send a very confused, mixed message and that that will lead to the police taking all sorts of different approaches. Frankly, if there is a gain as police time is shifted to dealing with harder drugs, I am concerned that we will lose some of that gain by maintaining such powers of arrest and, indeed, increasing them. I do not understand why the existing powers, under which people who are found unlawfully in possession of a class C drug can be warned, cautioned or issued with a summons to appear in court to face charges of unlawful possession, are inadequate. The police can confiscate the substance. On conviction, those individuals face a maximum penalty of two years in prison for possession, or five years in prison for supply. Surely the existing power to handle class C drugs use is sufficient. Why have the Government chosen to increase those powers?

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he not recognise that what happened in the Lambeth experiment was that the Metropolitan police discovered young people who were openly smoking joints in the faces of the police officers and saying, "We are breaking the law, and you can't do anything about it. Ho, ho"? That is why the police asked for the power of arrest. Does that not demonstrate the kind of problem with which we are dealing in making something quasi-illegal or quasi-legal?

Mr. Oaten: I do not think that we differ on this issue. It seems absolutely clear that, under existing class C powers, if people are smoking cannabis and walk into a post office and blow smoke into a policeman's face, the police could do as I just said: warn, caution, issue and, ultimately, take the case to court. So those powers are in place already, and I do not understand why the Government want to increase them in this way.

The Minister said in her opening remarks that there will be an amendment to change the power of arrest, so that there will be no power of arrest for some drugs currently in class C, but there will be a power of arrest for cannabis, which is now going into class C. I do not understand the logic of having different forms of arrest for the same class. Surely the point of having such a class is to say that certain drugs are similar, but the Government suddenly want to attach a different form of arrest to one of those drugs. The Government need to make up their mind: is cannabis now B2, or are they moving those other drugs into a class D? There is no logic at all in having a different form of arrest in the same classification.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention just as he is about to conclude his speech. Since the Liberal Democrats often represents its sister party—the Alliance party in Northern Ireland—will he clarify, for my own purposes, whether the views that he has expressed today in support of the legislation to reclassify cannabis are also shared by that sister party in relation to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Oaten: The honest answer is that I have not got a clue and I have not spoken to the Alliance party.

In conclusion, we will support the Government on this issue, but we would welcome their thinking again about some of the confusing messages on arrest that they are sending out because this positive step forward has been slightly spoilt by those messages which will make progress difficult in the future. If it turns out that some of the new powers cause confusion, I hope that the Government will think again about those issues, perhaps as part of a wider review of how the changes are operating in two years.

2.58 pm

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I shall be very brief because I should like some of my colleagues from Scotland to be called to speak.

It is quite disgraceful to put through something as important as this measure in one and a half hours. I do not blame the three Front-Bench spokesmen—the Minister gave way—but it is wrong to allow only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not here. A very important issue is being debated, and it would have been nice if he had been here today.

I have heard so much rubbish talked today about the Lambeth experiment that it would take me a very long time to deal with it all. I will not refer to that experiment other than to say that it was not a success. It was one of those schemes that was doomed to success from the beginning because the Home Office had decided that it would be successful whatever the outcome. As for the statistics, you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we can all say about statistics.

We keep hearing about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the implication is that it is made up of most eminent and respectable people—I do not disagree—and the font of all wisdom. It is important to point out, however, that it is part of the Home Office, it is not a scientific advisory panel, and many of its members have no scientific qualifications. It has about 32 members, of whom a substantial number—about 13—are committed to liberalisation of the drugs policy. It has no members from any organisations that have publicly said that they are not in favour of liberalisation. I therefore treat with a little bit of caution the assumption that everything that it says is right. [Interruption.] It has been suggested to me that I treat that assumption with a big bit of caution.

Reclassification is sending out a mixed message. It sends out a signal to our young people—whatever the Minister says, and whatever she wishes—that taking cannabis is not harmful and that it is legal. We have seen already, since the Home Secretary's statement in the House, that increasing numbers of young people are taking cannabis, and when confronted by teachers, parents or police, they simply say, "But it's legal." The message that that gives to young people—especially to those whose parents are keen to urge their children not to be involved with drugs that can be harmful—is to challenge their parents on the grounds that the House of Commons and the Government say that it is okay. We are sending out a very wrong message, which is also being sent out to the hard criminals and the real drug dealers. Whatever we say about people growing cannabis in their homes not having any dealings with such people, many people in my constituency would not even have the capacity to grow it in their own homes, so the only way that they will get it is through the criminal drug dealer.

Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this order will result in a much greater use of cannabis, which will consequently impose much greater strains on the national health service, and will also lead to people combining cannabis with alcohol and a significant increase in the number of road traffic accidents? Statistics and information are available that indicate that that is already happening.

Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not have time to discuss the health risks, but anyone who has listened to those who treat youngsters at the sharp end in the health service cannot fail to see that this order sends out a message that will lead, perhaps not immediately but in the long term, to more people taking cannabis and to a huge strain on our national health service. The fact that it is being reclassified, which effectively means that people think that it is legal, means that the peer pressure among young people will be much stronger. At the moment, at least young people can say, "This is not legal," if drugs are pushed at them—at least they have that kind of excuse if they do not want to take the drug but are not feeling particularly confident. Again, this order sends out the wrong message on that.

I have mentioned the link with the criminal element, which I saw in my constituency. What I want to ask the Minister is: why are we doing this now? What is the point of it? We need to look properly at the issue of classification. I agree strongly with some of the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—we need to examine this issue carefully and on the basis of proper argument. We should not go ahead with introducing this measure glibly. I genuinely cannot understand why we are going down this line. Reclassification will move us further down the route of considering drug abuse as normal, and I am not prepared to support that today.

3.4 pm

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire): The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, has been conducting a report into the illegal drugs trade and drug culture in Northern Ireland. We published an interim report, because we knew that this order was coming before the House, to try to help the House in its deliberations. I want to make one or two brief points.

First, drug use in Northern Ireland is different from in the rest of the United Kingdom. Cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug, and while street prices for most drugs are higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, cannabis prices are comparable, which suggests that there is a reasonably regular supply to meet the level of demand. As other Members have mentioned, considerable confusion exists about the current status of cannabis, and since the Government's announcement to reclassify, individuals have begun to smoke cannabis openly on the streets and in the clubs and pubs.
The Committee did not look at the health risks, but we expressed concern, as has been expressed by others, about the message that the Government are sending, both to drug traffickers and to international enforcement agencies, about the importance now being accorded to cannabis as an illegal substance. It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland has a serious problem with the growth of serious and organised crime, which has arisen as a legacy of the conflict. The criminal gangs, many of whom are linked to the paramilitary organisations, will exploit any opportunity for illegal profit. Demand for illegal drugs, particularly among the young, and particularly in relation to cannabis and ecstasy, has been growing over the last decade, and if criminals identify an increase in demand they will seek to meet it. The additional profits that they make will go to fund other criminal enterprises, such as fostering a market for heroin and cocaine, which at the moment barely exists in Northern Ireland, or possibly to fund further terrorist activity.

While we welcome the fact that cannabis remains a priority for the enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland, the traders and the traffickers must still be caught before they can be punished. In making those points, the Committee in no way seeks to undermine what the Government are trying to do in focusing on class A drugs. What we are saying is that Northern Ireland is slightly different, and does not yet have a major class A drug problem, and we want to keep it that way. Northern Ireland does have a problem with serious criminality, however, and those criminals will exploit any opportunity that is given to them, such as the confusion that arises over the status of cannabis, for their profit and to the detriment of society there.

I ask the Minister to reflect on those concerns. We would be grateful for a further assurance that action is being taken to ensure that the message that cannabis is still illegal, and for good reasons, remains clear, and that the greater significance of the cannabis trade within Northern Ireland is recognised by the enforcement authorities throughout the UK and abroad. There is much more that I could say, but time is short and I know that others want to contribute.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you could do at this late stage to extend this debate? It is unsatisfactory that we have had only one and a half hours to debate this important UK-wide issue. The debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill is coming up next, which could continue until any hour. Surely it is within our scope and within the responsibility of the House to debate this issue properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am afraid that that is not a matter that is in the power of the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern.

3.8 pm

Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I concur wholly with what has just been said by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). To have only one and a half hours, and only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, on an issue that affects every constituency in the land, and which is being debated by every young person in the land, seems to me to be folly.
If we were devising a drug and alcohol strategy for the United Kingdom from scratch, knowing what we know today about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco compared with those of cannabis, I am almost certain that we would not be starting from where we are. As we know, alcohol and tobacco are far more addictive and injurious to people's health. Every year, 120,000 people are killed because they smoke tobacco, and half of all people who continue to smoke for most of their lives die of the habit and lose 16 years of their life. The medical legacy of alcohol is every bit as pernicious: hepatitis, cirrhosis, gastritis, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mouth, oesophagal and liver cancer, foetal alcohol syndrome, blackouts, fits and neuropathy are all part of the problem—as I am sure that many Members know—to say little of the social damage in terms of domestic violence, marital breakdown, absenteeism and aggression.

In contrast, cannabis is a saint, not a sinner. However, that does not mean that cannabis is harm free because real health concerns exist. The tar yield from marihuana is precisely the same as that from tobacco, so smoking cannabis can pose a long-term health hazard. Indeed, a report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians published only a few years ago said:

"the smoke from a cannabis joint contains most of the same constituents as tobacco smoke, including the carcinogens. It is not surprising, therefore, that regular cannabis smokers develop chronic bronchitis and squamous metaplasia of the respiratory tract and it is likely that in time, it will become apparent that they are at increased risk of cancer"—

compared with the risks from tobacco.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said, there is a further problem due to the effect of intoxication, especially for people who drive. It is difficult to assess the precise problem, although a recent assessment showed that 10 per cent. of a sample of 284 drivers who had been killed by fatal accidents had cannabis in their blood stream. Of that proportion, 80 per cent. had not used alcohol, so it is quite probable, although not certain, that their intoxication was solely the result of cannabis use. Unfortunately, there is no roadside test to measure cannabis intoxication, which is why Professor Gold's "Comprehensive Handbook of Alcohol and Drug Addiction" says:

"The role of marihuana in road traffic accidents and other types of accident is vastly underestimated."

I think that that is pretty much the accepted view. A report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee accepted that cannabis could worsen the course of schizophrenia, although there is little real evidence that it may precipitate the disease.
The honest truth is that the medical evidence thus far is entirely uncertain. We cannot know the full human pathology of cannabis, which is why the Government's reports for the Department of Health are vital and we look forward to reading what they say.

There is some evidence that cannabinoids can be therapeutic, as has been mentioned, and Dr. Philip Robson's Department of Health report in 1998 made that pretty clear. The Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that between 1 and 4 per cent. of the UK's 85,000 multiple sclerosis patients are illegally using cannabis. Trials to date have been small and the results uncertain.

Dr. Iddon: This point has not been mentioned in the debate, but has my hon. Friend noticed that the order will reclassify tetrahydrocannabinol from class A—believe it or not—to class C? THC will be the principal constituent of the new medicines that will come out of the cannabis era.

Mr. Bryant: I was about to talk about precisely that, and hope that I can pronounce the word as well as my hon. Friend.

There is more evidence suggesting that cannabis and cannabinoids, most notably THC or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, can relieve pain and be used as an anti-emetic, which is why they can be especially useful for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Most controlled studies offer secure proof that marihuana and THC are effective appetite stimulants, which is important for people with cancer as well as those with AIDS. Indeed, cannabis appears to have no immunosuppressant effect on people with HIV, although the largest study, which involved 5,000 people, took place in 1989 and the pathology of HIV/AIDS is now known rather better.

Anecdotal evidence from several of my constituents supports the use of cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy, although it is ironic that cannabis was shown to have convulsant and anticonvulsant effects on animals, which were the subjects of the only substantial trials. It is suggested that cannabinoids can lower pressure in the eye, which would be useful when treating glaucoma. I represent the constituency with the highest level of glaucoma and blindness in Wales, so that is obviously a matter of interest. However, it seems that one would have to smoke 10 cannabis cigarettes a day to achieve the constant level of intraocular pressure that would be beneficial.

As other hon. Members have suggested, there are those who believe that cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. They believe that taking cannabis of itself leads ineluctably, medically and physically, to the taking of harder drugs such as cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. Simply put, that is not logical. The link is not direct or causal, but there is a link. As Drugscope told the Home Affairs Committee:

"Cannabis use puts individuals in social situations and supply transactions where they are more likely to experience people using, accepting and supplying more harmful drugs than others in the population."

In other words, people buy cannabis from dealers and dealers also sell heroin—that is certainly true in the Rhondda.

John Robertson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bryant: I will not because I am conscious that I have little time.

Some people suggest that the answer is to license cannabis and sell it at Boots. However, when similar policies have been tried or police have tacitly allowed coffee shops to exist in other countries, major dealers have hung around outside the shops because they know that the most likely new clients are existing cannabis users.
Moreover, there is a more direct link between cannabis and other drugs. Professor C.H. Aston's report for the Department of Health on the clinical and pharmacological aspects of cannabis in 1998 said:

"with chronic use, especially of high doses, tolerance develops to some of the effects of cannabis (including the euphoric effect) and can lead to physical and physiological dependence, withdrawal effects on cessation of use and possible escalation to other more potent drugs of abuse."

All that leads me to three central points. First, the Minister is right that we should proceed on the basis of sound medical advice as much as possible, rather than on simple prejudice or anecdote, but that means that we still need further hard empirical medical evidence and the Department of Health should work further on that. Secondly, it is only logical that a drug that produces significant medical problems, but ones that are minor compared with the effects of cocaine and heroin, should be treated differently in the law, which is why the order might be right. Thirdly, however, we should not encourage the use of cannabis. Cannabis is not okay and although it does not kill, it does matter.

3.17 pm

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): I reiterate that it is a scandal that we have so little time to debate the order. I have barely 90 seconds in which to speak, so I shall reassert a point that I have made before. Unless and until we are prepared to move from reclassification to providing legal outlets, we will not break the link between the suppliers of hard drugs and the suppliers of soft drugs. We will continue to drive soft-drug users into the hands of hard-drug pushers, and we will not achieve the advantage of breaking the link, restoring respect for the law and enabling a health warning to be put on a legally available product and displayed in outlets in which the product is available.

The Government have got the worst of all possible words. They will simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can confirm to the House that the ruling that I gave a moment ago was in accordance with the Standing Orders.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 160.

Resolved,

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.