| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): It is important to get our terms right. Talking about being ''addicted to cannabis'' is a slight misuse of language. Cannabis is not physically addictive, whereas nicotine is, and most cannabis is taken with tobacco. One should talk about ''a cannabis habit'', which can be very damaging. Mr. Grieve: With regret, I disagree with my hon. Friend. People can be addicted to all sorts of things, such as drinking vast quantities of tea or coffee. If someone has a psychological dependency that interferes with their health, that is an addiction. Anyone who drinks six or seven mugs of coffee in the morning knows that doing so has physical consequences. Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Grieve: Let me continue. I have clearly sparked a fuse. From the evidence of my visits to the United States, I know that cannabis use is regarded there as a psychological addiction, which has serious health consequences for the user. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in so far as I accept that cannabis use is unlike crack cocaine use, because in the case of crack cocaine, there are clear signs of physical addiction, as, indeed, there are in the case of heroin. Mr. Cameron: No. It is terribly important to get this right. It is true that one can be addicted to shopping or tea, but there is a difference between a physical addiction—the strongest form of which is an addiction to heroin or other opiates, although one can also be physically addicted to nicotine or caffeine—and a mental or psychological addiction, such as in the case of cannabis. There is no medical evidence for physical addiction to crack cocaine, but there is very strong evidence for high psychological addiction. I am sorry to be a pedant, but it is important to get the terms right. Mr. Grieve: I do not find my hon. Friend in any way pedantic and I am prepared to accept what he says, but Column Number: 837 I disagree with him about consequences. It does not matter whether one has a physical or psychological addiction to a drug, if the consequence of the psychological addiction is that one is repeatedly driven to take that drug because of one's psychological need, and if the drug has a physical influence on the person while it is in his system. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that someone is in a different physical condition after he has smoked cannabis from that which he was in before. That is evidenced by the fact that he is unsafe to operate machinery or to drive because his cognitive functions are impaired. In the United States, a distinction is not made because smoking cannabis is regarded as a public health problem.Mr. Stinchcombe: So that we can have a properly informed debate, will the hon. Gentleman table all the evidence that he has seen that demonstrates that cannabis is addictive, so that we can scrutinise it?
Mr. Grieve: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have seen plenty of evidence—[
The Chairman: Order. We are still on amendment No. 652 Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the Committee—I was getting carried away with my own enthusiasm. Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): I just want to bring the debate back to the nuts and bolts. Would my hon. Friend accept the proposition—if it has anything to do with what we are talking about—that those youngsters who abuse class B drugs, whether that be through amphetamines, glue sniffing or cannabis, are more likely to be part of a fraternity that is connected with crime, and therefore much more on the conveyor belt towards acquisitive crime, which comes from the move on to the next drug, than they would be otherwise? Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I agree, although I apologise to the Committee for being carried away. The two issues that he mentioned are linked. The discussion was prompted by the amendment that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome tabled, so I do not think that it is illegitimate to run the two issues together. However, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I should have widened the scope beyond what he was trying to achieve. I do not agree with his amendment, for reasons that have become fairly clear, although I was trying to highlight the notion—I agree with him on this—that there is no point in starting down that road unless that leads to proper rehabilitation being made available. I shall return to that issue in the next set of amendments. If we are going down that road properly, it would be well worth picking up whether young offenders have a problem with a class B drug, although without Column Number: 838 criminalising them, because the matter is a public health issue of great importance, which is taken seriously in countries such as the United States. Opportunities are made available to such young people for proper rehabilitation that, unfortunately, we simply do not have in this country.I am not prepared to accept the principle that cannabis is an innocuous substance. We have gone down that road and may come back to it. Cannabis might be only psychologically addictive, but the consequences of that psychological addiction are immensely destructive. Furthermore, as I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Witney would agree, there is clear evidence that repeated cannabis use can have serious health consequences, by causing psychosis. Mr. Cameron: I just want to clarify that I do not disagree about consequences—I did not even mention them. I have spent a lot of time on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and for the benefit of the Committee I wanted to define the difference between mental addiction and physical addiction, and make sure that the right drug was in the right category. That was all that I wanted my hon. Friend to be clear about, and was the sole purpose of my pedantry. Mr. Grieve: As I said to my hon. Friend, he was not being pedantic, and I am grateful to him for clarifying that matter. From my work practising as a barrister and the work that I have been doing over the past 12 months, I am perfectly aware of the difference between a psychological and a physical addiction. However, from the point of the view of the consequences to the user, my opinion is that although there might be differences in treatment, the damage that is done to the individual if they are addicted psychologically or physically can ultimately be similar, in terms of the destruction of their life. That is why picking up whether 14-year-olds have a class B drug problem such as cannabis might be equally valuable if we can provide proper help for them. Coming back to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I have explained my position on that, which is that as I have just enough residual faith that the Government will try to do something about class A drug addiction, the provision might be of value. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is right that, unless that provision exists—at the moment it does not—it has no value. Mr. Stinchcombe: So that we can debate this on a properly informed basis rather than through bias, can the hon. Gentleman supply us with any evidence that the use of cannabis is immensely destructive? Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that regular use of cannabis— Mr. Stinchcombe: Immensely destructive. Mr. Grieve: Yes it is immensely destructive. One only has to meet people who have been regular cannabis users to recognise the way in which it has destroyed their life. I accept that occasional, recreational use might be harmless, but I do not Column Number: 839 accept—on the evidence of people whom I have spoken to and seen—that that is the case in relation to regular use. I have only to think of the parents who came to my surgery last week and described their son's schizophrenia. He was hospitalised at the age of 23 with serious psychotic problems, entirely triggered by cannabis use at university.If the hon. Gentleman is going to tell me that there is no clear evidence of the link between cannabis use and psychosis, when it is well documented in medical literature, we are on different planets. Mr. Stinchcombe: On the broader argument, I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The greatest indicator as to whether someone will be a heroin addict when he is 25 is whether, at the age of 15, he plays truant and smokes cigarettes. I simply suggest that it is damaging to use terminology in a misleading way and to suggest that cannabis is both addictive and immensely harmful when it is relatively harmless and largely used by law-abiding—[Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. We are involving ourselves in a clause stand part debate instead of debating amendment No. 652. The Committee is anticipating the next group of amendments. If we are to have a debate on the merits of class A drugs, cannabis or any other substance, it should come within the appropriate group of amendments and I would advise the Committee to dispose of this amendment before moving to a more general debate. Mr. Grieve: I am conscious that the cats have started to miaow. In the circumstances— Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Grieve: Of course I shall give way. I was not intending to raise passions on the amendment. I am sorry that I ran the amendments together, although they have a logical link. I shall return to my own amendments in a cool and dispassionate way in a moment. Dr. Turner: As a simple non-lawyer, I am at a loss to see how the hon. Gentleman's amendments have any relevance to the arguments that he has been putting to us. What is the advantage of changing the age at which a test is taken from 14 to 18? The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is concerned about much younger people becoming involved in drug abuse. I do not see the relevance, and I would appreciate it if he could explain what the amendments contribute.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 6 February 2003 |
