Let us examine this attempt at dispassionate analysis.

 

It is remarkable that in his consideration of interesting papers that have appeared over the last 18 months, there is no direct reference to the so-called. Wootton Report' Instead, he is content to quote out of context a comment by Lady Wootton during a debate on this Report in the House of Lords. This Report is by far the most comprehensive that has appeared on the problem of marihuana over the past 18 months, and has a very good claim to be also the most authoritative. Its findings are not in sympathy with the views of your commentator, and his neglect of the Report exemplifies his juggling of the literature to suit his purpose.

 

The gist of the first paragraph in "Legalize Marinuana?" is that many people have treated the problems of drug dependence too tightly. On any controversial problem there are sure to be a lot of people who treat it too lightly, just as there will be a lot of people who treat it too seriously. Either statement is therefore worthless as argument; but one can be used in an attempt to brain-wash.

 

Consider his speculations about the dangers of marihuana. Life would be dull without speculation; but why each time do his speculations come down heavily against marihuana—the speculation on Well's work that regular usage could create a dependency state, the speculation of the possibility that intellectual deterioration could so result, the speculation that unrecognized reactions to marihuana are being concealed in statistics? These possibilities are of course undeniable; but it might escape the casual reader that they are speculative and therefore have little or no force in an argument. Here again a slanted view is revealed.

 

Then there is the prominence given to the report of an isolated case of a deformed child born to a woman who smoked marihuana during her pregnancy. I look forward to the day when reports of isolated cases such as this are recognized by editors of scientific journals as having no scientific merit. Amongst the unsuspecting, they can be used as a basis for argument by someone with an axe to grind.

 

Finally, there is the question with which he concludes—

 

could . . we safely or confidently legalize marihuana?".

 

This is a legitimate question surely; but there are also a number of others equally legitimate, such as: Could we safely or confidently continue to keep marihuana illegal? Could we safely or confidently illegalize alcohol or tobacco? Why, amongst these questions, does your commentator pick just one, if it is not an attempt to subtly influence our judgements?

 

We cannot escape the attempts of the commercial Press to manipulate our attitudes; but we expect better from our own scientific journal.

 

A. J. CHRISTOPHERS.

 

I "Cannabis, Report by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence", Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1968.