Editorial: Medical use tones down risk message

Do those immersed in the political fug of Parliament realise how inconsistent some of their decision-making is? Apparently not. How else to explain a Government doing its level best to eradicate tobacco smoke from the environment at the same time as some of its MPs are promoting a relaxation of the cannabis law. Ever more draconian steps are being taken to stop the smoking of one harmful product, while the decriminalisation of a drug with similarly detrimental properties is under discussion. Now the liberalisation of cannabis stands to receive an undeserved boost from a recommendation of Parliament's health select committee, which wants doctors to be able to prescribe clinically tested cannabis products for medicinal purposes.

MPs on the committee were swayed by the view that cannabis has been shown to be effective in providing relief for some medical disorders. This might almost have been taken as read, given the drug's narcotic qualities. The more relevant question is, "how effective?" If cannabis is so beneficial, and so much better than products already on the market, it is worth asking why its possibilities have not been seized upon by the pharmaceutical industry. There are plenty of precedents, including opium, for illegal substances being employed in medicine. Cannabis, however, remains largely the product of a clandestine industry. Only now are pharmaceutical companies starting to show an interest, most notably through the development of an under-tongue spray to alleviate the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

It is far too early to say whether this will prove more effective than alternatives already available, or whether harmful side-effects will outweigh the benefits. Certainly, there is little to suggest the spray will foreshadow the widespread use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. What is known is that heavy use of cannabis is extremely harmful, invoking the likes of memory loss and attention problems. And that, particularly for the young, it is a gateway drug - a stopover on the road to the likes of heroin and cocaine. This is not a victimless activity.

Worse, political approval for the medicinal use of cannabis would inevitably be abused. Those who want cannabis legalised for recreational smoking would see its medicinal use as a step towards that goal; a possible backdoor to legalisation. That ambition will not be satisfied this parliamentary session because of a Government commitment to United Future. But the select committee report is a triumph for the Greens.

If the Government's attempt to satisfy these two parties has succeeded only in producing an unsatisfactory compromise, the advantage now lies with the Greens. Should the medicinal use of cannabis be approved and Peter Dunne's party fare poorly at the next election, the path to legalisation becomes relatively straightforward.

That opening must not be provided. There is nothing yet to suggest that cannabis, and cannabis alone, is the answer to certain medical situations. Or that its use in that domain can be controlled. Further, the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes is already sanctioned under the law. The Health Minister can personally authorise its use in individual cases. It says much that Annette King has never seen fit to give her permission.

Rather than soften the law, Parliament should relay a message about the severely harmful effects of cannabis, which are well documented; the medicinal benefits are not. The dangers are as well documented, in fact, as the damage that can be caused by cigarettes. To consider relaxing the law prohibiting a drug that is, at the very least, equally toxic makes no sense.