| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Flynn: I am not saying that. I am saying--as I have always said, although some people claim that I have asked for the legalisation of drugs--that I want a royal commission. To broaden the debate, may I say that by the time that it comes into force it will be a people's commission. As things are at the moment, public opinion is so steeped in prejudice and ignorance on the subject that that is not a practical proposition. I am asking for us to return to the position that we were in in 1971, when cannabis was prescribed for the use of certain illnesses--that is the sort of legalisation for which I am asking.
I believe that we will come to a decision in the future--probably early in the next century, when we will have a clear view of the dangers of all drugs and will put them into some sort of hierarchy of danger. We will limit their sales and control their use in order to reduce their harm.
We have problems now with prohibition. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds gave us part of the case for prohibition. I point out to him that there is one doctor in this country who has been prescribing heroin. He did not treat heroin addicts with methadone which--this may surprise the hon. Gentleman--has killed more people than heroin; the medicine is worse than the problem itself. He treated them by prescribing heroin. His patients could get heroin from the health service immediately, which decriminalised them. They did not have to steal £100 to £300 a week to feed the habit, so crime went down. They did not feel that crime was the only answer. Many of the 200 to 300 people in that doctor's care rehabilitated themselves because they were not under pressure as they had been before. They knew where the drug was coming from and many of them went back to work.
Unfortunately, the doctor's clinic has now been closed and the patients have gone back to prostitution and theft. They have had to go back on the streets to buy heroin of
uncertain quality and strength. Sixteen of them are now dead. Those are the two possibilities. Either heroin is obtainable through a black market system, which is deadly and increases crime and death, or it is available through a system of regulation in which the strength and purity of the product can be known and in which people can live relatively normal lives and have a real chance of rehabilitation.
Hon. Members on both sides are saying that they believe in prohibition. My argument is that prohibition does not work--[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds trying to intervene?
Mr. Spring:
I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to finish.
Mr. Flynn:
I am surprised that no one wants to intervene on this point. I can tell the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who seems to be angry about the matter, that I am concluding the introduction to my remarks. I hoped that the Leader of the House would return. I am sure that he has gone to have a quick fix from one of his cigarettes; he is a smoker. I say that with some--[Interruption.] Hon. Members should see that tobacco use is an addiction, that nicotine is a drug and that it is the most deadly one we have to face. Not only do we throw people into gaol for using cannabis, which is a relatively harmless drug, but we spend £100 million trying to persuade people to use tobacco.
Conservative Members may well recall that during the election campaign, Imperial Tobacco gave poster sites to the Conservative party. The company told me in a letter that it did that because the Conservative party was the only one that did not intend to impose a ban on tobacco advertising. The Conservative party colludes with the drug pushers of nicotine while it condemns others.
A drug worker in Cardiff told me recently, pointing to the absurdity of the present situation, that a father came with some concern to the drug abuse clinic. He complained that his young son was spending his Saturday nights reading poetry and smoking a cannabis joint. His father wanted him to go out every Saturday night, as he did, and to do the macho thing of drinking 15 pints. There is a great deal of difference between those alternatives.
In our previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health said that one of the derivatives of cannabis should be made available as a medicine. Naboline and Dronabinol are now available; they are very similar. The path that we are going down is dangerous. We know that cannabis is a highly complex substance consisting of at least 65 main elements. We do not know what the reactions between those elements are and it may be that one derivative neutralises another. It is dangerous to go down the path of extracting chemical products rather than using a natural substance that has been around for a long time.
I appeal to the Minister to look again at all the people who are now breaking the law for themselves or for their relatives because taking cannabis is the only way in which they can find relief from painful illnesses. We know that the reason for opposition to cannabis is not entirely medical. We know that the Government and the official Opposition realise that there are great harvests of votes to
be gained from quarrying the great cliffs of ignorance and prejudice in society, although not among young people. I am afraid that that is the view of both sides.
Mr. George Howarth:
I do not think that those remarks are worthy of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Flynn:
I refer my hon. Friend to what happened some time ago in a by-election. One candidate shared my views. He wanted an intelligent debate on cannabis and all other drug use and wanted a royal commission to consider practical methods of harm reduction. Unfortunately, my party denounced that person and presented our candidate differently. The decision of the electorate meant that the Liberal Democrat candidate was elected after he had been found in possession of an intelligent idea and the Labour candidate was rejected for implausible sanctity on the subject of drugs.
The House, made up as it is of politicians of a certain generation, should be warned that a whole electorate of young people outside have far more experience than any of us have of the use of recreational drugs of choice. Those young people have become alienated from the political process. They realise that what we say about drugs is not true and when they stop believing us on that subject, they stop believing us on many others.
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds):
All those who heard the speech by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will have been impressed by the extraordinary way in which he has taken on his brief and moved forward the agenda for tackling drug abuse in this country. He has done so with characteristic modesty and self-effacement, but I salute him for his accomplishments today on behalf of all of those who have taken an interest in the subject. The subject has also been taken on by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his approach has worked extremely well in moving forward the agenda.
I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) because he sought to highlight the real dangers of drugs misuse for many years before it became such a central focus of interest in Parliament, through the central drugs co-ordination unit. I salute him for his unsung work over the years.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council referred to the fact that a real attempt is being made throughout the United Kingdom to tackle the growing, difficult and intractable problem of drugs misuse. My right hon. Friend might be interested to learn that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is examining the question of drugs misuse in the Province, which has become an especial problem, not only because of the significant drug problems in Dublin, but because of the terrorists' activities and their desire to make money.
We know that a structure has been put in place, and I wish, by way of example, to refer to our experience in Suffolk and to examine whether the White Paper has had the intended impact in local communities. How, for example, are the drug action teams in the various parts of England working in practice?
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made some interesting and salient observations. I may not have made myself clear earlier, but I am strongly opposed to any kind of decriminalisation. It is sad, however, that the hon. Gentleman's salient comments were not heard by more of his colleagues. It is regrettable that, apart from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), no other Labour Members of Parliament are present in the Chamber, especially as we are debating what is probably the most crucial social problem of our time.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey(Mr. Hughes) talked about the prevalence of drug use. The use of cannabis was mentioned in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report, which was released in May. It stated:
"Cannabis is more likely to be used frequently, with 9 per cent. of all cannabis users reporting daily use, and 14 per cent. taking it several times a week."
The health implications, particularly for cancer, are alarming. It continued:
"With Ecstasy, LSD and amphetamines users, very few take these drugs daily, but 20 per cent. take them more than monthly."
That is an alarming statistic. The report continued:
"Of those who have tried cannabis, 1 in 10 develop some form of psychological dependence syndrome."
This is not some sort of safe drug. It continued:
"Significant numbers are reporting experience with more than one illegal drug".
It is not true that there is not some sort of a changeover between different kinds of drugs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |