Home Affairs Committee - Drugs: Breaking the CycleSupplementary written evidence submitted by Mary Brett [DP021a]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR SUBMISSION TO THE DRUG POLICY INQUIRY FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE SESSION AT 12PM ON 24TH APRIL 2012
Mary Brett, Former biology teacher (30 years—grammar school, boys), Trustee of CanSS (Cannabis Skunk Sense), Member of PandA (Centre for Policy Studies) and former Vice President of Eurad.
Already in my written evidence I have drawn attention to the fact that Prevention has been shown to work (para 7). The USA campaign between 1979 and 1991 coincided with a dramatic drop in usage and Sweden’s extremely low use of drugs is due almost entirely to their unceasing efforts in prevention.
Also at that time in the USA a PRIDE (Parent Resistance Information for Drug Education) Survey in 1983, found that the largest number, more than 70% of young people, abstained from cannabis use because of fears of physical or psychological damage, 40% due to the law and 60% because of parental disapproval.
In 2005 a survey among year 10 children (14–15s), in which my school took part, was published. It was a doctoral thesis from Brunel University by Dr Barry Twigg. “Drugs Education and Young People”.
Six schools took part (around 1,000 children). In a survey of factors helping them to abstain from using drugs, the commonest one in 90% of them was “danger to my health”, over 80% worried that drugs could kill them, 70% feared side-effects, over 60% worried about parental disapproval, nearly 60% were concerned about the illegality, around 40% about their school grades. Others were: how drugs might affect the memory, being caught and the fact that they thought that drugs were not cool.
This is why it is essential that children get the whole truth about drugs—they are entitled to no less.
Of the six schools, all very different, mine had the lowest rate of regular drug use (3%), the highest was 18%, the average 6%. One school—a very restrictive boarding school, had 0% use.
Prohibition has worked. Only around 10% of UK citizens use drugs regularly. The law and common sense deter the other 90%. The incidence of cigarette smoking is falling. Around 20% of the population now smoke, down from 30% a few years ago, due in no short measure to prohibition in public places. Many now regard tobacco smoking as anti-social. Are we to accept the smoking of cannabis in public places?
In many respects, not least in terms of health, Prohibition of alcohol in the United States did work (Emerson H 1927/8). Alcohol Prohibition in the USA was dismissed in the meeting as having failed.
Less alcohol was drunk.
Liver cirrhosis deaths fell by over one third.
Cases of alcohol-induced psychosis plummeted.
Alcohol-related divorce, delinquency and child neglect all halved.
I repeat from my former written evidence (para 8) the fact that: overall drug use may have fallen in the last 10 years but the last BCS reported that there had been a 1% increase in the “last year” use of cannabis among 16 to 24 year olds in the UK. This amounts to around 55,000 people—there is no room for complacency.
I informed the meeting of the change in strength of THC in cannabis (para 14) over the years and the fact that skunk now occupies about 80% of the cannabis market. I want to expand on another three items listed in my written evidence.
Para 15 explains how the THC unlike the other commonly abused illegal drugs, persists for weeks in the cell. The presence of THC impairs the transmission of the many neurotransmitters (chemicals carrying messages between cells). Every function of the brain is affected and many essential connecting fibres will not be made. Brain development stalls, the younger they are the greater the damage. They are more likely to drop out of education, become addicted, move on to other drugs or suffer from psychosis. This very negative effect of THC on the brain started my campaign against cannabis. I witnessed some of my very bright grammar school boys throw away their futures. Most parents on being alerted did not want to know.
Paras 16 and 17 were about psychosis. Because of the work of Murray, D’Souza and others, there can now be little doubt that “THC can induce a transient acute psychotic reaction in psychiatrically well individuals”. Arguably we have more proof for cannabis causing psychosis than for cigarettes causing lung cancer: Tobacco can be “painted” on the skins of animals and shown to cause cancer. With humans, all we have are statistical correlations. Yet the vast majority of the population believe that the correlation with tobacco/lung cancer exists.
Professor Murray and his team have actually given THC to healthy volunteers, and produced a “transient acute psychotic reaction” in them. Add that to the fact that dopamine (the pleasure neurotransmitter) is increased in the brain. Those suffering from psychosis or schizophrenia have an excess of dopamine. There are numerous statistical correlations and emerging evidence of brain damage (para 21) in the relevant regions. I cannot believe that we need or indeed can find any more convincing proof. It surely is essential to err on the side of caution. We must not take risks where the futures of our children are concerned.
There is now general agreement among scientists that there must be a gene or genes which can be triggered by cannabis to cause schizophrenia. Cannabis users double their chances of suffering from this condition. The COMT gene was thought to be responsible but one researcher, Zammit failed to find the connection. The AKT1 gene is now being explored (Van Winkel 2011).
Para 18 “The Gateway theory” is entirely ignored by FRANK. I wrote of evidence from Swedish experiments on animals, and a longitudinal study from birth in New Zealand. Now Mayet in 2012 has added to a long list of other papers showing a correlation. Over 29,000 French adolescents were studied. The risk for other illicit drug initiation was 21 times more with experimenters and 124 times higher among daily users than non-users. Tobacco and alcohol were associated with a greater risk of moving on to cannabis.
Anne Milton was very supportive and assured me that she would do everything she could to help. Charles Walker MP secured an adjournment debate last year on 9 June. He and Anne gave excellent supportive and reassuring speeches.
That was in sharp contrast to my dealings with the members of the FRANK team. Dr Prunty has already been mentioned. I had already sent the team my large scientific updated report on cannabis and was told it would be read as they had a large team. However as they had been in place under the last regime whose policy was harm reduction, they did not appear to have taken on board the new prevention policy. I experienced a great deal of intransigence and opposition (I have the correspondence).
In a patronising way I was told how to talk to teenagers, having spent all my teaching career with 11 to 18s. I was informed that children would consider the “gateway theory” to be Government propaganda. My report with numerous references to papers on “gateway” had obviously not been looked at. They tried to justify giving out harm reduction advice to children including: “advising that needles are not shared to prevent infections like hepatitis B or C and HIV/AIDS…. Using ecstasy….regular breaks … to cool down and prevent …overheating and dehydrating”. It is not the role of an official Government website to give out tips on safer drug use. This can be seen as encouragement to experiment—a green light, and interpreted as condoning an illegal activity.
I was assured that Robin Murray’s findings had been taken into account. There was no evidence they had ever been looked at. They said, “The risks and harms of drugs are also highlighted. This approach enables individuals to make informed decisions—an approach that is emphasised in the Drug Strategy …”. Nowhere in the Drug Strategy could I find reference to “informed decisions” nor did I expect to. This is typical harm reduction “speak”.
I was sent the section on cannabis to look at and suggest alterations. I spent a considerable amount of time on it. When FRANK was re-launched, NONE of my suggestions had been accepted. After I sent another e-mail they added two of my points. My dealings with FRANK were entirely unsatisfactory.
Since we are now told (30 April ACPO report) that 21 new cannabis factories/day are being discovered, double the number four years ago, it is obvious there is a huge market, and a renewed urgency to rectify all past mistakes, and to properly inform the population, especially children who are so vulnerable.
The cannabis information on the majority of other drug sites is also inadequate, misleading, out of date and can be wrong. Many seem to take their “facts” from FRANK. I have already mentioned Drugscope’s unreliable information, and Lifeline’s freely given advice on injecting drugs.
The charity Mentor states on its website: “Mentor is the leading international NGO voice of drug abuse prevention.”
However like FRANK it advocates “informed choice”. I have already explained why children of seven and upwards are physically and psychologically incapable of making choices. This is not what a prevention charity should be doing. They should be trying to stop children ever starting. And like similar sites, its cannabis information fails young people.
The name “skunk” is not used, no information or warnings about current strength is given. The word “cancer” does not appear. More astonishing, neither do the conditions “psychosis” or “schizophrenia”. A huge opportunity is missed to explain to people how and why academic performance dips and adverse personality changes occur BECAUSE of the persistence of THC in the brain cells. Children want to understand. Scientific explanations are invaluable. I repeat they want excuses to say “NO”.
Depression is not addressed. It can lead to suicides. There is mention of aggression but not the terrible violence displayed by some psychotic cannabis users. I work in a charity with parents, most of whom have children very badly affected by cannabis use. Some of these parents have been attacked, had ribs broken, been pushed downstairs, had hands squashed in doors and even members of their family murdered. Houses get trashed and money and credit cards go missing.
The gateway theory is ignored as usual as is the immune system and driving.
Addaction boasts of being, “The UK’s leading specialist drug and alcohol treatment charity”.
Like FRANK, Drugscope and Mentor, the cannabis information is similarly out of date, incomplete and flawed in many respects.
The most reliable site for true scientific up-to-date Facts on cannabis is the USA sites of NIDA (National institute of Drug Abuse). It is run by scientists and commissions scientific research.
In para 32 I wrote that Professor Glyn Lewis’s research is being supported. He said, “there is no certainty of a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis”, announcing that the risk of psychosis from cannabis use is at worst 0.013% and perhaps as little as 0.0030%. He was quoting from a paper by Hickman et al in 2009 which used outdated data from 1997–99 when the THC content was much lower than it is now. His “light” users included “ever taken”—this could have been once!
Only one paper to date has been conducted using skunk—the one by Murray’s team in 2009, mentioned in my submission comparing skunk, hash and the risk of psychosis.
May 2012