Advert
Print
Friday, December 16, 2011 by

Christian Peregin

PN, PL view decriminalisation of cannabis as a bad idea

Decriminalising cannabis is a bad idea, according to the most influential institutions in the country: the Nationalist Party, the Labour Party and the Church.

Meanwhile, green party Alternattiva Demokratika believes the use of all drugs should be decriminalised but not legalised.

“Cannabis has a worse physical and psychological impact than cigarettes and alcohol”
- PN spokesman

The Times sought various views in anticipation of a demonstration planned for tomorrow to call for laws on cannabis to be reformed. Those behind the protest say they believe in the decriminalisation and eventual legalisation of cannabis.

Decriminalisation refers to a situation in which the possession of a drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence although it might still attract a light sanction. Legalisation goes further, effectively regulating drugs in the same way as alcohol and tobacco.

The PN disagrees with both decriminalisation and legalisation but believes prison should be “the last resort” for cannabis users.

“Cannabis has greater dangers than tobacco, and in certain instances, alcohol. Being culturally acceptable, and legal, does not in any way decrease the harmful consequences of alcohol and tobacco,” a PN spokesman said.

The PN argues that the medicinal value of cannabis can be exploited in medications which would do away with its “harmful” effects.

“So the solution is proper production of these medicines and not legalising cannabis.”

According to the party, cannabis should be confiscated from those caught using it and users should be helped to stop using it altogether.

“Prison should be the very last resort when all possibilities of rehabilitation, that are many, have been exhausted,” the spokesman said, adding that experience in other countries showed decriminalisation did not decrease consumption.

“The state must control as much as possible the drug dealers, and not make cannabis legal to decrease their impact.”

The Labour Party gave a more generic and curt response to questions sent by The Times, saying simply it does not agree with “decriminalising drugs”.

Making no reference to cannabis specifically, a spokesman for the party said: “The priority should be on strengthening the methods used for prevention, with particular emphasis on education and fighting trafficking.”

Meanwhile, the Church, which focuses a lot of energy on the rehabilitation of drug addicts, says first-time offenders should be given a second chance but punishments serve as an important deterrent.

“Some people choose not to use cannabis because of the legal consequences rather than because of their health. It’s good to have these barriers,” Caritas director Mgr Victor Grech said, adding that the effectiveness of these deterrents depended on the person’s character.

He argued that cannabis had a worse physical and psychological impact on people than cigarettes and alcohol.

“The difference is the impact on the brain. Alcohol works slower than cannabis in humans.”

Decriminalisation would in-crease the number of users and therefore mental illnesses like schizophrenia. Cannabis is also a drug that leads to the use of other drugs, even though alcohol is the first drug in many cases, he says.

On the other hand, Alternattiva Demokratika says all drugs should be decriminalised, even if not legalised.

“If you are caught using drugs, you should not be sent to prison. But if you are an addict, the State should be able to decide to rehabilitate you,” AD chairman Michael Briguglio said.

“We are not a pro-drugs party. We are not in favour of selling cannabis in shops. We don’t agree with those who say cannabis isn’t harmful... I think it is harmful. But I don’t think it should be a criminal offence to smoke cannabis,” he said.

AD also believes drugs should be classified because “smoking a joint and being a heroin addict mean different things”.

Asked how alcohol and tobacco would compare with cannabis in such a classification, Dr Briguglio pointed out that AD was in favour of stricter laws on tobacco and alcohol.

He said the problem in the country was the large number of people in prison because of drug use and this would be best tackled through decriminalisation. Either way, he said, there should be a scientific approach to the discussion.

“There is nothing wrong with having the authorities investigating the claims of the medical use of cannabis...

“But we do not agree with a free-for-all legalisation policy.”

Print
Advert

175 Comments

Post comment

Please see our new Comments Policy

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

For more details please see our Comments Policy

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Robert Agius

Dec 19th 2011, 19:44

Hedonism might generally be connected solely with sensual pleasure. However, it is not limited only to that - Power is an example, or the pleasure you get from trying to prove others wrong. You might want to inform yourself about the term, and perhaps utilitarianism, epicureanism and egoism.

Not perfectly!! at least we get Francis Saliba to admit something.

Sorry for giving you more unpleasant work but can you kindly answer the following then - f it emerges that decriminalization works better socially, would you finally give up on your opinion? Although I do wonder how much evidence it would take to change your opinion.

Robert Agius

Dec 19th 2011, 14:13

Question 4 was the simple question I asked but maybe you are delirious or schizophrenic or who knows maybe intoxicated. Benefits does not only include monetary gain in the English vocabulary. So I will take the latter part of your answer - It intends to prevent the expansion of the scourge of abuse of all mind-altering drugs.

So here is my next question - Do you think it is working?

6) “Isn't anyone who believes that their opinion, beliefs and moral codes of more value being 'unmitigated self-centred egoistic hedonism no matter at what cost to the rest of society.” Answer: Now, THAT is gibberish in need of rephrasing. It is impossible to ascertain whether you are asking a question or if you are making a statement (and an incomprehensible one at that!)

“Isn't anyone who believes that their opinion, beliefs and moral codes of more value himself guilty of 'unmitigated self-centred egoistic hedonism no matter at what cost to the rest of society.”?
better now? Looking forward to more of your self-righteous nonsense.

Robert Agius

Dec 17th 2011, 18:38

Oh! i see. It's really working. (when everything else fails? what do you mean by that?) All drug users are addicted?

Robert Agius

Dec 17th 2011, 10:18

Please note that many of the freedoms we enjoy now are possible because some risked breaking the law and going to prison. Was that simply to satisfy their craving? Your simplistic view are staggering. Ignorance at it's best. You still have not answered. What are the benefits of a person going to prison for using a substance for personal use, NOT selling? Straightforward answer please, no beating around the bush.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 17th 2011, 17:01

@ Robert Agius.

Praiseworthy members of society who risk imprisonment for genuine freedoms (e.g. those that are internationally recognised as fundamental human rights), deserve everybody's full praise for their altruism and self sacrifice in the interest of the well-being of society as a whole.

The drug subculture does not belong to the same category. It is not similarly altruistically motivated. It is unmitigated self-centred egoistic hedonism no matter at what cost to the rest of society.

The "staggering" ignorance should be laid at the door of anyone so simplistic as not to appreciate this fundamental difference unless his nose is rubbed into it.

Robert Agius

Dec 17th 2011, 18:10

Again you refuse to answer a simple question. How else do you want be to put it to you? Is it that difficult for you to understand? which part to you need me to rephrase? What are the benefits of giving a prison sentence to someone caught with a small amount of cannabis from personal use?

It is unmitigated self-centred egoistic hedonism no matter at what cost to the rest of society.' Thought you were talking about the capitalist system for a moment but I'm sure that has less of an effect than a sub culture, right? Isn't anyone who believes that their opinion, beliefs and moral codes of more value being 'unmitigated self-centred egoistic hedonism no matter at what cost to the rest of society.' Just different perspective. I don't expect 'an angel' who converses only with 'angles' to understand this. I do however expect a reasonable answer to my simple question.

L. Schulte

Dec 19th 2011, 11:17

@ Francis Saliba M.D.
RE: Human Rights

Article 8 (Right to Privacy)
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Article 9 (Freedom of Religion and Belief)
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety of the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Before you critizise this as saying that cannabis is not a religion I would like to point out that my 'belief' in the medicinal benefits of the plant should not be contented by public authority. I am not a religious person but would never think of forbidding someone to go to church.

Furthermore, personal consumption of a plant in the privacy of ones own home does not threaten democraycy, create disorder or crime, and it certainly does not threaten the health, morals, protection, or human rights and freedoms of others.

However, your dictation of what I can and cannot consume does indeed threaten my personal freedom and belief to do with my body as i please.

Robert Agius

Dec 17th 2011, 11:37

Why do people drink coffee? sometimes cause they are finding it hard to wake up, stay up or to concentrate. Sometimes just something for a conversation between people. Sometimes it is because people have become addicted to it (at work generally). People are different and so are their reasons for doing things. This goes for everything - gym, wine, tv etc. Life is not all black and white. Everything can be psychologically addictive. Please note that in some cultures such as Egypt, tea was frowned upon when introduced into their culture. What do you mean they are from the same culture? especially in a globalized world? Funny how you speak about culture though, considering that it was the British who started the opium wars, in a time when it was far from being used solely for medical purposes. You see culture is not clearly defined and static.

'Whatever it is, cannabis use can so easily proceed to other drugs. And when drugs take hold the victim becomes so selfish (alcoholism) and utterly unproductive (heroin, cocaine).' Like Huxley, Dali and perhaps even Shakespear? Of course there are many who are unproductive too but doesn't this go for everyone regardless of one's habits and routine? What proceeds to other drugs is not the substance, but the personality of a person. Perhaps you should suggest banning weak personalities?

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 17th 2011, 14:03

TRANSLATION for the blinkered:

" ... 'Encourage EXPERIMENTATION BY GOVERNMENTS WITH MODELS of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.... " is NOT a recommendation to decriminalize. It means that further experimentation is necessary before an acceptable model of decriminalisation could be recommended.
its feasibility, and in what shape, has still to be ascertained and that it is not yet ready for adoption.

Seamus Riolo

Dec 17th 2011, 03:40

Totally wrong...
As any other animal, we were born free and without laws... Although as any other animal we form groups and leaders... IN NO WAY we were made to obey rules like don't park on that double line, Don't drink if you are 12, Don't smoke in that building.. This is human made staff don't try to put god or the "System" and you know what I mean by "System", the same corrupt and controlling system you believe in and blindly make part of. But have the decency in you to, if you believe in god, Don't try to say he created us to listen to this man in uniform and whatever they decide to do with their countries and if you don't believe the more and more, because as a person who wouldn't believe in these things it wouldn't make any sense at all to say we were born to obey this thing.

Open up your mind doc, god told adam and eve to do whatever they please as long as they don't eat from the tree of knowledge... Research the facts about what these people are saying... try to find proof of what the laws are biased on... not from a government website or a study financed by the governments because that is crap... people posted many links pointing to the right direction of scientifically proven facts lately so if you wanna read just take a look at our group on facebook.

No, Sorry, I wasn't made to obey the stupid law of don't smoke under 18, that isn't in my nature.
Peace \/

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 17th 2011, 10:43

@ Seamus Riolo.

I beg to differ. It is you who are totally wrong. You became responsible to obey laws as soon as you attained the age of reason and prior to that your parents/guardians were responsible for you. You may choose to disobey all laws at your risk and peril but, please, when you are caught do not cringe, whine, crawl and beg to be exempted from the punishments prescribed by the law on behalf of society.

I did not put "god" in the "system". I mentioned Him after someone else said that God had given him some right to do whatever he wanted in order to have his fun, even if it meant addling his brains with stupefying drugs. Christ is the nearest authority I know empowered to speak on behalf of God and I quoted HIM.

I am not interested in the least in any advice from atheists and/or anarchists to open my mind about the drug problem. When I need to inform myself I look for knowledge in specialist literature not facebooks. That level may suffice for you. It is not enough for me.

ray bajada

Dec 16th 2011, 19:21

There seems to be more we agree on then first meets the eye.

I read with interest your other post earlier and one thing that immediately drew my attention was the words used: chronic user.

What quantities and what regularity defines 'chronic user'? Is it the normal dosage used by a marijuana smoker in a day for recreational purposes? Twice that? Ten times that? What parameters have been used to come up with the results of damage you have quoted in your post?

I mean....

a chronic use of caffeine sends the human nervous system in tilt....
a chronic use of alchohol dissolves the human liver.....
a chronic use of aspirin kills....as been reported not so long ago with warnings in regards....
a chronic use of chocolate for goodness sake will cause huge problems....

At face value such results would point to the same treatment that you are insisting Marijuana should retain because of your findings.

But we all know alcohol in small doses is actually good for you.
We all know aspirin helps alleviate pain.
We all know a cup or two or three of coffee in the mornings helps one wake up properly.
We all know chocolate is a delicacy and will be consumed by the ton in the coming season

...so yes...I do agree that chronic use of something as unknown as Marijuana is sure to have some heavy side effects....but what constitutes Chronic User to achieve such results as in your report?

And does it all justify having somebody making personal use, in possession of, or cultivation of to still be considered as dangerous as a Heroin or Cocaine user and treated as a Criminal Offense???

I totally agree with you that two wrongs do not make a right, but let's be honest with ourselves, abolition has not worked and drugs are even more freely available locally then I ever remember them being.

Isn't it about time we place everything in it's proper perspective and consider alternative methods of controlling the ever escalating problem?

And please don't bother giving me any reason for not doing so, looking at what is happening in Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, and a host of others is making this local insistence of retaining a total prohibition stand ridiculous.

For goodness sake, even the UN Global Drug Council has come out in favor of Decriminalization. It is no longer the talk of some stoned out hippie, but world authorities who are now seeing that it may be the way forward.

And you keep on insisting that your policy is the right one and all else are wrong?

How pedantic is that?

Robert Agius

Dec 16th 2011, 19:50

Ok, fair enough. Each one with his own opinion. However, can you please tell me what you find wrong with decriminalization? What benefit comes from giving a prison sentence? This I fail to understand from all those who strongly are against substance abuse, especially cannabis.

Tim Vella

Dec 16th 2011, 19:57

@ Francis Saliba M.D.

It seems that we have learned absolutely nothing from the Volstead Act.
Prohibition simply does not work. All it does is worsen the situation by giving popularity to the illegal substance involved.

Never underestimate the need for young dopes to defy the conventional laws.
You want them to brush their teeth? Make it illegal.
Make toothpaste illegal... and they'll be standing on the roof brushing away. It's natural to human beings, I think it's a healthy thing.

Is marijuana harmful? Damn right it is, but having the state acting like daddy and caging joe citizen is not the way to do it. Does incarcerating people help even if it's for their own good?!

How many deaths are related to cannabis use yearly? How many deaths are related to heroin use yearly?
Maybe 8 to 12? (Incidentally, if heroin was legal and controlled ie not mixed with other substances there would be 0 deaths) Is there a need for draconian laws?

Now answer this... How many die from car accidents? More? Should we make cars illegal?
How many die from fatty foods yearly? Much more? Should we ban butter and milk, beef and pork?
What about melanoma cancer? Shouldn't we jail people wearing bikinis and swimming trunks?

Prohibition on ANY substance has never worked in the past and it sure is not working now, and never will.
You, as director of the National Drug Intelligence Unit shouldn't be having me, a nobody telling you this.

Mr Mark Borh

Dec 17th 2011, 09:29

It's a pity as having coffee shops would bring over a lot of tourism! I was in Amsterdam earlier this year and it was packed!

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 20:05

Um ok... sit down, take a nice deep breath and stop biting the table.

Mr andreas bone

Dec 16th 2011, 23:07

Since you're putting it on the religious side Karl Mercieca, i actualy did get a copy of the bibble and found the below:

The hemp plant (scientific name: cannabis, slang name: marijuana) is but one of the many useful herbs "yielding seed after its kind" (Genesis 1:12, 29) blessed by God on the third day of creation for people to use in conjunction with our free will. The only place in the Bible where Cannabis was mentioned by name got switched into 'calamus' by the King James translators as part of a holy ointment (described in Exodus 30:23).

The Bible also predicted prohibition: "In the later times, some shall … speak lies in hypocrisy … commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (Paul: 1 Timothy 1-4) Nowhere in the Bible does it say people cannot grow, possess, use or even smoke cannabis or that hemp is bad. In fact, quite the contrary: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.…To you it will be for meat.' … And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:29-31)

Get a copy yourself Karl and read it before you blabber nonsense cause i think the only use you're finding for your bibble is to kill cockroaches during hot summer nights.


Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 17:21

Do you expect vegetarians to pay for meat-eaters when they enter hospital?
Do you expect vegans to pay for vegetarians?
Do you expect people who exercise daily to pay for those who don't?

Ian Fenech

Dec 16th 2011, 15:49

For your information Mr Jensen, research seems to point that smoking cannabis reduces the harmful affects of nicotine on the body

Danny Jensen

Dec 16th 2011, 16:03

Yes, it may seem so. That is another positive thing about cannabis, not a negative for it. Nicotine is more of an addicting substance rather than the really harmful chemicals present in cigarettes.

Your comment has only proven my point more strongly, that cigarettes and alcohol are MORE harmful than cannabis.

J lanzon

Dec 16th 2011, 15:35

@Rights
Cannabis is not a drug.

@Alcohol
ok

@Coffee
Coffee has far more risks to your health than any joint would do to you.

@Drugs
You have no say in what one person does in his own time. What would you do if someone told you don't watch tv because i'll arrest you? Also It's not a drug, and cannabis helps you find your inner focus and helps the well-being of a human. Maybe there are some side dangers which are really not that dangerous but it's no reason to treat cannabis like heroin.

Mike Abbot

Dec 16th 2011, 15:52

none of your points make much sense but here goes....

@Rights
From where does the right to be on drugs eminates?

same place the 'right' to be on alcohol comes from. the point, however, is not a legal point.


@Alcohol
I am against alcohol too and would apply the same legislation for any person found with high alcohol content.

you are basically condoning prohibition - read your history books to see the (non) effectiveness of that.


@Coffee
I still have not read/seen anyone drunk through drinking coffee.

or cabbage, or bread.. or.... what's your point?


@Drugs
I have not yet understood why drugs are important for one's wellbeing.

if you are talking about cannabis then there is nothing to understand. Unless there is a therapeutic need, no one is arguing that it's important for one's wellbeing - just like the vast majority of things we do and consume.

Franco Attard Trevisan

Dec 16th 2011, 19:32

I have no problem at all with banning tobacco and alcohol!!! ..... As long as cannabis is legalized!!!!! =)

Danny Jensen

Dec 16th 2011, 16:01

I don't exactly think it's fair, or safe, to assume that those "publicly advocating the legislation of drugs" are drug users who aren't admitting it, and I also fail to understand how this would imply that they don't have "a life".

Drugs are no doubt harmful, but surely you must agree that heroin and cocaine are more harmful and cannabis? Further, you must agree that alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous, and cause more deaths than cannabis? Granted, there are a number of adverse effects of cannabis, including hallucinations, yet how many do you hear of dying as a result of smoking marijuana? Not as many as who die from drunk driving or any other drunk related accident.

If you happen to disagree with either of the above statements, I dearly suggest you at least research a tiny bit about alcohol and marijuana, their different effect and see for yourself.

Franco Attard Trevisan

Dec 16th 2011, 19:38

This is an article regarding the legalization of cannabis... obviously this blog is surely our place to be!!! I think that somebody who is bored by reading and carries on reading (plus replying) is the one who should GET A LIFE!!!!!!

Mr andreas bone

Dec 16th 2011, 23:15

Spot on Franco.

Michael Pace

Dec 16th 2011, 14:25

Well said.

And by the way, what does the PN mean that prison for cannabis users is last resort? Given the current facts about drug use in prison, is the PN saying that drug victims deserve much worse by being exposed in such an environment? What correctional system is this? Shame!

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 14:32

@ Peppi Azzopardi.

Imn'Alla li ftit biss fost dawk li ghandhom is-setgha li jiddecciedu ghall-gid tas-socjeta' huma tal-istess fehma tieghek.

David Caruana

Dec 16th 2011, 14:38

Prosit Peppi!

Legalizazzjoni, u iktar importanti, regolazzjoni biss jistghu jipprotegu lil dawk taht l-eta' u jatu daqqa ta' harta lil barunijiet.

Marija Assunta Koncetta Calafato Milanes Consiglio

Dec 16th 2011, 14:40

Naqbel ma' Peppi. Nahseb li jew il-cannabis ghandha tkun legali bhall-alkohol jew inkella it-tnejn li huma ghandhom ikunu illegali.

J Cassar

Dec 16th 2011, 14:45

Prosit pep!

Jimmy Magro

Dec 16th 2011, 14:53

@Peppi Azzopardi
Is-soluzzjoni hija li jitnaddaf il-habs. Imma li tghid li in-nies tad-drogi ma jmorrux il-habs allura nistghu innehhu l-habs u ma nibghatu lill-hadd.
Ghax kulhadd jaf igib raguni/skuza ghaliex ghamel xi reat.

Ma tafx xi hsara qed jaghmlu fuq iz-zghazagh dawk li jbieghu d-droga. Niskanta kif tibqa' tiddefendi nies li qed jaghmlu tant hsara lill uliedna.

Mark. Galea

Dec 16th 2011, 14:57

@Peppi Azzopardi

x'hin dawk li jkollhom il-vizzju tad-droga joqghodu bi kwiethom u ma jmorru jisirqu lill-hadd, naqbel mieghek. Pero jekk jisirqu, u kollha minn hemm jghaddu, iridu jispiccaw il-habs, fejn ma jkunu jistghu jaghmlu hsara lill hadd .. Pepp, ghaliex ghandu l-anzjan jidhol imwerwer id-dar li ma jsibx xi halliel fuqu? Ghaliex dik il-mara anzjana tas-sena l-ohra kaxkruha mill-handbag, u mietet, U HADULHA IC-CAVETTA HALLI JIDHLU JISIRQUHA waqt li li kienet qed tmut l-isptar????? Ghaliex kull darba li taqra l-ahbarijiet tal-qorti, fejn jidhol serq, il-bicca l-kbira jkollhom il-problema tad-droga?

Ghal dawn it-tip ta nies soluzzjoni wahda hemm ... il-habs. U mhux biex jirribilijataw ruhom, imma biex inzommuhom barra mis-saqajn.

Charles J. Buttigieg

Dec 16th 2011, 15:02

Peppi,bl'ahhar sentenza fottejt il forza ta l-argument tieghek.

Michael Pace

Dec 16th 2011, 15:53

@Mark Galea

Li qed issemmi huma kazi ta' vittmi fuq sustanzi totalment differenti. Imma apparti dana kollu, il-projbizzjoni, u dan it-taboo ma thallix ghazla ghal dawn il-vittmi ghajr li jibqghu jgherqu wehidhom, peress li ha jibqghu dejjem underground. Jigifieri, l-ironija hi, illi l-projbizzjoni hija appuntu l-kawza ta' ghazliet kriminali li jkollhom jaghmlu dawn in nies, ghax is-sistema hija ostili lejhom in the first place.

T Gauci

Dec 16th 2011, 16:56

Peppi tiprovax tbidel il fatti, in nies ta drogi immoru il habs ghax wettqu att kriminali mhux ghax just hadu id droga.

Ramon Casha

Dec 17th 2011, 08:16

@T Gauci: Iva, u dawk in-nisa li jiġu mħaġġra u maqtula talli kienu qed joħorġu ma' xi ħadd f'pajjiżi bħall-Iran ukoll qed jiksru l-liġi.

Mhux kull liġi hija tajba.

Joseph Grech Attard

Dec 16th 2011, 14:40

Can you tell us WHERE we can find this "real, modern, proven and non biased research" please?

Mr Duncan Scerri

Dec 16th 2011, 14:33

Since some decided to put into the constitution that the church "has the right and the duty" to educated the citizens of Malta.

We *really* need to get the constitution updated and out of the Middle Ages.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 15:16

Since when? Since the time when church started to run rehabilitation centres trying to recover the flotsam and jetsam left behind by the drug abuse disaster!

Mr Duncan Scerri

Dec 16th 2011, 14:30

None at all, that's why the person chose to remain anonymous instead of putting his/her hand up and being ridiculed for the next 18 months.

Mr Duncan Scerri

Dec 16th 2011, 14:29

You fail to grasp what decriminalising even the hard drugs will achieve. Take a look at cities and countries that have introduced prescription heroin services. There are marked decreases in the number of crimes committed and registered drug addicts. Helping an addict get off their poison is a lot more effective than locking them up where there's an endless supply of poison.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 15:12

That is the clever and sly way to go about it! Softly, softly catchee monkey!

First alcohol, then smoking, then marijuana, then heroin and after that, the world!

Mr Duncan Scerri

Dec 16th 2011, 14:26

Yes, but they tend to refer to the mullahs and imams instead.

Karl Consiglio

Dec 18th 2011, 11:17

SPOT ON, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!

Mr Duncan Scerri

Dec 16th 2011, 14:25

"My belief, as a practicing Muslim...intoxicants impair, not only health, but also ability to judge between right and wrong."

As Marx wrote: "Religion is the opium of the people."

Your choice of intoxicant has clouded your judgement.

Choose how to live your own life. Keep your nose out of mine.

Haroon ali

Dec 19th 2011, 07:22

OK then Mr Scerri, why not legalise all drugs, not worrying about any long-term (and short-term!!) consequences?!

Allah's judgement is the only 1 that will count in the end.

My 'intoxicant' leads me to a life that is free from all poisons, whether recreational, or habit, or addiction...

I'm Marx knows what I'm talking about (now)...

J. Debono

Dec 16th 2011, 12:19

It seems you are misinformed.

Alcohol is enormously beneficial to health. A glass or two of wine a day, is not only beneficial, but recommendable, by ALL doctors.

This has been proven by hundreds of studies. Ever heard of the 'French Paradox' - look it up.

It is the EXCESS of alcohol i.e. more than 3 Units/day every day, that shows harmful effect.

And even exercise in EXCESS may be harmful.

On the other hand, small doses of cannabis, though studies are inconclusive, does not seem to be very harmful, but it sure is not beneficial. (Though you may argue that in CERTAIN diseases it can be used as medication).

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 13:22

It is you who are spreading misinformation.

I have never questioned the harmful effects of alcohol and smoking. I have always insisted that because alcohol abuse and smoking have been rampant for centuries, that is no argument for adding marijuana or any other addictive drug to the list. Two wrongs do not make a right. I prefer that existing controls on smoking and drinking alcohol be tightened.

Of course you knew that already but, the way the mind of some people works, there is no harm in spreading a little defamation.

Jimmy Magro

Dec 16th 2011, 13:35

@ Mr. Patrick Zammit
Why should persons on drugs be considered liberal?

What are the benefits of drugs?

What can you do better if you have drugs?

Why cant you live without drugs?

Who will support financially your drug habits?

Will you be able to have a health insurance company cover your medicl costs if you told them you a drug addict?

For now I stop here, Sir.

Matthew Micallef

Dec 16th 2011, 14:08

Your excuse that alcohol and tobacco have "been rampant for centuries " kindly note that all drugs have been in use for thousands of years, and they have been legal for thousands of years. And in that period of time, the world never had an apocalypse from a bunch of doped up hippies. So just like the world didn't believe that the Libyan revolution wasn't sparked by some hippie, stop trying to convince us that the war that you support is being fought against a bunch of pot heads.

If God gave me my freedom by right, who are you to take it away from me?

@Jimmy Magro: Ask yourself the same questions for alcohol and you have your answers. Drugs are a vague words used to describe anything that stimulates you. I don't break into your home and smack that nice glass of red from your hand do I? It's your right to do whatever it is you want, so long as it stays in your private life. This is the only reason that people are protesting, it is because personal rights have been sacrificed, cheekily, due to misinformation.

David Caruana

Dec 16th 2011, 14:08

Jimmy,

People who support decriminalisation are liberals by nature because they don't think they are some god's gift to humanity to impose their mentality on others.

What are the benefits of drugs such as alcohol?

What can you do better if you have alcohol?

Why aren't you fighting to have alcohol illegalised? Why can't people live without it?

Support me financially?! For weed? Surely not you and besidesm there won't be the need when the State makes the necessary arrangements so that every adult can grow his own. This will happen, whether you like it or not. Maybe you won't be here to see it happening if you of the same age as the doc up here

Will you be able to have a health insurance company cover your medicl costs if you told them you a drug addict?

Cannabis users are NO ADDICTS. Learn before you speak! Cannabis is NOT physically addictive like caffeine, nicotine or heroine. It is habitual and its psychological addiction is similar to the daily watching of the 20:00 news, habitual. It can be discontinued withOUT any problems.

There are 2 different kinds of people - those who speak from personal experience and those who regurgitate all the garbage which has been fed to them.

Patrick Zammit

Dec 16th 2011, 15:13

Dr Saliba and others

Do you accept that alcohol and to a lesser degree tobacco, are several times more harmful than cannabis both to the individual and to society as explicitly shown by the Lancet report mentioned by The Economist?

If yes, doesn't the hypocrisy of society that made alcohol and tobacco legal but punishes users/sellers of cannabis in a draconian way trouble you?

By the way, I rarely drink and smoke and never did the other drugs. So Mr J Magro, how dare you imply that I am an addict?

@ Dr Saliba

On these pages, you once told me that your distaste of dictators is not limited only to Gaddafi but whilst articles by the Times on Libya carried one or more comments by you (rightly) against Gaddafi, comments against the Syrian dictator from you and others were conspicuous by their absence.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111211/local/syrian-community-in-malta.397898

I see a similar trend by you on the question of cannabis use.

stefan vella

Dec 16th 2011, 11:55

doesn't matter, you will have to pay taxes for people who need help for diseases that come from smoking cigarettes, along with diseases that come from abusing alcohol, not to mention all the accidents that are going to occur from people drinking and driving during the holidays, can't forget that, now.

stefan vella

Dec 16th 2011, 11:59

excellent comment.

Michael Pace

Dec 16th 2011, 11:37

I am copying and pasting a reply which I have sent in another post:

Dear Dr Saliba,
It is true that certain studies have shown that certain brain areas shrink after a long
chronic use of CERTAIN cannabis strains, but you missed a very important point. That this shrinking takes place
if the subject is exposed to prolonged abuse of Skunk and not other less potent strains.
For the sake of our readers, Skunk is a high potency
cannabis strain, which hit the streets by growers who experimented in cross "growing" different strains of cannabis.
To put you in a more understandable perspective, I shall use the alcohol example.
Skunk can be compared to whiskey, while normal cannabis can be pretty much compared to wine. Important to note that skunk
has around 20% THC, where other normal strains, especially those which have not been modified by growers have around
5 - 10 % THC.

Now what is the point of all this? Indirectly Dr Saliba, you are proving our point right, that prohibition allows
these strong strains like Skunk to hit the streets where as regulation PREVENTS these strains from hitting the streets. Why?
Simply because cannabis will no longer be available from dealers, but from professional governement entities,
which dictate which strains should be allowed for consumptions and which not.

Regarding the effect of cannabis use on pregnant women. Please, make solid, sound arguments. Women in pregnancy periods
should also avoid food or drinks which contain certain chemicals, like aspartame, which is commonly found in Diet soft drinks.
So do not, please, use such arguments to put a plant into a bad light, since it is only logical that a responsible pregnant
should avoid any substance whatsoever.

Ah, and yes. The famous schizophrenia. Finally we are admitting that schizophrenia MAY be induced by cannabis in people
who are in development stage. But please.. who are those people in this stage? I presume under 21 no? And here,
yes we all agree, that consumption of Cannabis should be forbidden for people under the tender age of 21, and this should be
enforced under any legislation.

How about you stop disseminating Half Truth information?

Paul Smith

Dec 16th 2011, 11:44

Wrong wrong wrong

And why not just say MRI instead of: high resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging or you you think we are all ignorant like you are?
As for the British Governments reclassification - you have no idea what you are saying Sir!

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 11:51

@ Michael Pace.

That alcohol is just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than any cannabis is no sort of logical argument at all. Two wrongs do not make a right. Responsible medical opinion is actually in favour of the tightening of laws governing the use of alcohol and smoking.

I know that legitimate attempts are being made to synthesize cannabinoid derivatives for medical use which would be less dangerous than the original cannabinoids. These are intended for legitimate medical therapeutic purpose under medical supervision, not for general use by the drug subculture

David Caruana

Dec 16th 2011, 11:55

Schizophrenia is a VERY rare conditions and you are talking about those who are predesposed, hence the wording, "developing schizophrenia EARLIER in life".

But let us agree with you and say that whoever smokes cannabis regulary has double (x2) the chances of developing schizophrenia.

I'll ask you once again this very simple question:
Cannabis = x 2 risk of developing mental illnesses.
Tobacco = x 20 (yes, TWENTY) risk of developing lung cancer.

Tobacco is legal and regulated.
Cannabis is illegal and left in the hands of criminals.

Please Doc, do explain to us the logic in that!

Beppe Coleiro

Dec 16th 2011, 11:59

This is a fair point, and though I think there's more to this debate than medical consequences alone, it is true that the literature on cannabis use has often been downplayed, manipulated or cherry picked to suggest that it is harmless, when it isn't. I hope that as this debate widens balanced and qualified people will come forward to lay bare the facts on which both sides of the argument will rest. After all, pointing out that marijuana is harmful may not be an adequate justification for it to maintain it's current status as an illegal controlled substance, seeing as this has not been deemed 'reason enough' for criminalising various other substances among which alcohol and tobacco are included. On the other hand, concealing its harmful qualities or referring to dubious sources is just not in the spirit of serious, open debate. Anyone seriously debating this topic should be prepared to have their mind changed, and that holds true for those lobbying for legalisation as well.

Unknown Name

Dec 16th 2011, 12:20

What about tthe scientific evidence for the harmful effects of Legal substances, alcohol and tobacco Dottor Saliba? not to mention pharmaceuticals.

Cheryl Saliba Ellul

Dec 16th 2011, 12:54

Dr. Saliba,

You really think that by using complicated & scientific terms you have a point !! Mela let me use complicated & scientific terms to show you the affects of Alcohol & cigarettes on Humans and then judge for yourself which is more harmful to the human body. I am no doctor or medical practitioner but I know how to use the internet & make good research (like most of the Maltese people).

Alchohol on the human body

Absorption and Distribution Mechanism
When consumed, alcohol first irritates the mucous lining of mouth and then esophagus causing an anesthetic effect. Then it goes to stomach where only 20% of the total quantity is absorbed by it. Rest 80% is then absorbed by small intestine from where it gets distributed throughout the human body. Alcohol travels through blood and comes into contact with cells of almost every organ. As mentioned earlier, due to its high affinity towards water, it can penetrate almost all cellular membranes resulting in absorption by all organs.

Effects at Initial Stages
When ingested, the effects of alcohol on human body change gradually over the time. At initial stages, a person feels more relaxed and cheerful which is followed by more stumbling movements and animated speech. They become more confident, and often let go of their inhibitions. This happens because of the increased metabolism in nigrostriatal pathway of brain which is associated with body movements. While, increased alpha waves from brain make person more cheerful and relaxed, the stimulation by alcohol to cortex, hippocampus region of brain helps to shed off inhibitions. This stage is often termed as 'euphoria' where BAC is around 0.03 to 0.12%.

Long Term Effects
Alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme secreted by hepatic cells converts alcohol to acetaldehyde. This acetaldehyde further gets converted into acetic acid and then acetate by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetate is a compound of fats which gets deposited locally. Because of the chronic and continuous consumption of alcohol, the increase in fatty acid levels results in forming of plaque in the hepatic capillaries. This situation leads to liver cirrhosis. As liver performs vital role in filtration mechanism of body, malfunctioning of liver often leads to jaundice and hepatitis. As alcohol inhibits antidiuretic hormone secretion, more urine is formed which results in dehydration. During pregnancy, alcohol consumption can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Carcinogenic Effects
Alcohol comes under Group1 carcinogens as classified by WHO. Although, previous studies have failed to establish a direct connection between alcohol and its effect on cancer, there is a strong indication to suggest that alcohol enhances the effects of other carcinogenic chemicals like tobacco. Acetaldehyde, the byproduct of metabolism of alcohol, gets concentrated in the body in high amounts. It can damage the DNA of cells. Their reaction with polyamines can end up in formation of mutagenic DNA. The excessive consumption of ethanol also makes mouth, larynx, pharynx, esophagus more prone to cancer.

General Effects on Human Body
There are different effects of alcohol on human body depending upon the concentration of alcohol in blood. They are generally classified as follows-
BAC count ranging from 0.09 to 0.23% often leads to lethargy. In this condition, people become sleepy, they lose coordination and start losing their body balance. It is also characterized by blurred vision.
When BAC count ranges from 0.17 to 0.28%, it may cause confusion in a person. It is characterized by aggravated emotional state where people try to be sentimental or overly aggressive. They are not certain of what they are doing. Dizziness continues. Nausea is also a common symptom of this phase.
When BAC count ranges from 0.25 to 0.39%, the condition is known as stupor. In this stage, body movements are severely affected and patients lose and regain consciousness intermittently. They have a high risk of coma or even death.
When BAC count ranges from 0.35 to 0.50% , the condition is known as coma. It is characterized by unconsciousness when body reflexes are low, breathing rate declines resulting in dropping of heartbeat rate.
When BAC crosses the mark of 0.5%, it results in failure of CNS (Central Nervous System) ultimately resulting in death.
Alcoholism is a major public health problem. While consumption of alcohol develops an array of diseases, its withdrawal also develops symptoms like delirium tremens which has a high percentage of mortality rate (35%), if not treated.

Smoking effects on the human body

The effects of smoking on human health are serious and in many cases, deadly. There are approximately 4000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the internal functioning of organs to the efficiency of the body's immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread.
Smoking Effects on the Human Body

Toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke travel throughout the body, causing damage in several different ways.
Nicotine reaches the brain within 10 seconds after smoke is inhaled. It has been found in every part of the body and in breast milk.
Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen.
Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.
The carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene binds to cells in the airways and major organs of smokers.
Smoking affects the function of the immune system and may increase the risk for respiratory and other infections.
There are several likely ways that cigarette smoke does its damage. One is oxidative stress that mutates DNA, promotes atherosclerosis, and leads to chronic lung injury. Oxidative stress is thought to be the general mechanism behind the aging process, contributing to the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and COPD.
The body produces antioxidants to help repair damaged cells. Smokers have lower levels of antioxidants in their blood than do nonsmokers.
Smoking is associated with higher levels of chronic inflammation, another damaging process that may result in oxidative stress.

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 13:00

The UK government decided to reclassify cannabis AGAINST the advice of its own advisory board. They actually SACKED the scientist who provided the results, which prompted a spate of resignations of highly experienced scientists from government advisory bodies once they realised that they were not there to give advice, but to rubber-stamp decisions the government had already taken.

daniel Gordon

Dec 16th 2011, 13:28

F Saliba

For every argument you can come up with, I or someone like myself, will have a counter argument. We will come up with facts, where as you have only your blinkered, conformist views.

I will just comment on one piece of what you have written -

2) that clinical studies have demonstrated definite reduced performance in memory tests and the appearance of threshold subclinical symptoms of major psychoses (schizophrenia and mania) in chronic marijuana users with an estimated forty percent increase in the risk of developing schizophrenia earlier in life.

How does one become a "chronic user" in ones "early life"?
This is from the free dictionary:
chron·ic (krnk)
adj.
1. Of long duration; continuing: chronic money problems.
2. Lasting for a long period of time or marked by frequent recurrence, as certain diseases: chronic colitis.
3. Subject to a habit or pattern of behavior for a long time: a chronic liar.

Early life would suggest a person of minor years.
So if cannabis is a controlled substance, given out by government institutions or departments to folk over the age of, say 21, then there will be no chronic use in early life.
Or are you saying that ALL cannabis users are young, chronic users?

You quote studies. I could of course do the same. Your arguments are no more valid than mine, I however do not want to keep the status quo, but wish to move on. The war on drugs is lost. Was lost before the first dollar was spent. Why cant you see that and instead of allowing the criminals to run the cannabis market, advocate for change? Let society/government get the tax funds that are there to be had.

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 12:53

Not to mention that inexpensive vaporisers can be used to avoid the detrimental effects of the smoke itself.

daniel Gordon

Dec 16th 2011, 13:48

It is fairly easy to find.

However the quality is appalling because of no regulation.

The price is appalling because of no regulation.

The user has to go to a criminal to buy because of no regulation.

The government and society lose out from the money because there is no regulation.

Quote from www.businessweek.com - "according to recent figures, U.S. consumers number anywhere from 25 million to 60 million (depending on how likely survey respondents are to tell the whole truth), and at an average cost of $5 per cigarette (and factoring in one per day for each user), total spending on marijuana may add up to $45 billion to $110 billion a year."

Turn those figures to Malta where maybe 10.000 people may have a joint a day =18 250 000€ per year.

Thats 18 and 1 quarter millions!! Money that could go to health and education instead of the criminals pocket.

stefan vella

Dec 16th 2011, 12:39

MY WORDS EXACTLY!

Mark. Galea

Dec 16th 2011, 12:53

And AD definitely lost mine ... and this seals my vote to PN or PL ... and I hope that people that fuel their drug addiction with thefts finish up where they belong - behind bars ... for a long time ...

Mark. Galea

Dec 16th 2011, 12:53

It may be sort of "difficult" for some people to vote next election ...

Danica Rosso

Dec 16th 2011, 12:56

How sad to see that you are still in favour of a long lost battle! This battle has been going on for centuries and the state has LOST the battle and is only helping drug pushers and the corrupt politicians get richer by the day while those who should be given help rather than sent to jail are just being condemned to an underground existence.

Mr Justin Grima

Dec 16th 2011, 12:08

Hence why legalisation is the answer. It's not rocked science Francis Saliba M.D ;)

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 12:48

EXACTLY the opposite.

Since the cannabis plant grows easily in a Mediterranean climate, decriminalisation allows people to grow their own plants and thus take business away from the drug pushers - as well as ensuring the quality of the final product.

Danica Rosso

Dec 16th 2011, 13:00

You are not even on the same page as the rest of those the world. Decriminalising will get rid of pushers who in fact are the real problem since they are criminal elements hell bent on making a profit out of the misery of drug addicts.

What are your thoughts about the alcohol prohibition that was enforced in the USA and the resulting flourishing of an all powerful criminal organisation?

This is exactly what is happening in our world, drugs are produced by hard-core criminals for profit or for political wars (Taliban for Al Qaeda is an example). Decriminalise the drugs and it will not remain profitable for these people to produce and ship them off to the rest of the world!!

J. Micallef

Dec 16th 2011, 12:17

Well... do you see any drug addicts - that of being a nicotine addict (cigarettes) steal or something to satisfy their thirst for them? No eh? Same will happen for cannabis. One, cannabis is not addictive as other drugs, and quite less than nicotine and alcohol. Therefore, if you do not see such who do so for cigarettes, you will see much more less from those who use cannabis.
And where have you ever heard of a case that one goes and steal things/money to satisfy their cannabis addiction? We hear such cases to satisfy their heroin or cocaine addiction, but not cannabis.

And what's the problem about rehabilitating drug addicts? So what, put them in jail while they're vulnerable to become much more of addicts since in prison there is a serious case of drugs? You refuse to help such people? What kind of person are you really?
Funny if you are a person who goes to Church as well. Helping the so called corrupted 'Christians' to make them believe they're forgiven of all their sins. And yet they believe so when they do not even deserve it after what is generally done. But the best of all is that you either forgive such persons or make yourself believe that they are sharing the word of God.
Hence you still say that drug addicts should go to jail and therefore should not be forgiven also because of not wanting to help them, when in fact, being just a drug addict doesn't make one necessarily a thief and neither makes one a sinner.

Shame on you

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 12:46

This merely shows that all you know about drug addicts is nothing.

The cannabis plant (Maltese: "qanneb") can be easily grown in our climate. It even grows well as a potted plant, so the only expense involved is a bag of compost, maybe some fertiliser, a few pots etc.

Unfortunately, since anybody growing it for personal use risks 10+ years in jail, people are being forced to get it from dealers who also sell cocaine and heroin, and who have an interest in pushing consumers to these more expensive and more addictive drugs. That's where the trouble is.

Matthew Grima

Dec 16th 2011, 11:28

Legal? It's an unwritten law to mislead the public apparently.

Mjohn borg

Dec 16th 2011, 11:10

AMEN!!!!!!!

M Mamo

Dec 16th 2011, 11:27

you have 5000 friends ... from that point onwards your comment stopped being credible

daniel Gordon

Dec 16th 2011, 11:57

@M Mamo:

to you maybe, but not to the 4718 members here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/10343067353/

Of course, it is not my place to say how they will vote, I grant you that, but the fact is that neither party can afford to lose more than 1500 votes in a general election. And by listening to the lies that they have spouted in this article, I dont see them getting my friends vote.

Francis Saliba M.D.

Dec 16th 2011, 11:39

In your quote, Prof Nutt is not saying that cannabis is harmless. He is only saying that alcohol and tobacco are still more addictive. Who wants to add more harmful drugs to those already in common use and producing tragic results?

Holland has tried to experiment with laws permitting drug abuse. It is now trying to retrace its steps following pressure from adjoining countries about the harm being done to foreign visitors making use of the lucrative drug tourist trade provided by the Dutch. The drug selling outlets in Holland are also being severely and progressively restricted.

Luke Lanzon

Dec 16th 2011, 11:51

to mr saliba

wrong the conservitave party (what a suprise!!) tried to make coffee shops restricted for citizens only....guess what, it failed.

Ramon Casha

Dec 16th 2011, 12:41

@Francis Saliba: No, he's not saying that cannabis is "harmless". Not even sugar is "harmless", and you can die from an overdose of paracetamol. If cannabis is less harmful and less addictive than alcohol, then it makes sense to treat them in a comparable manner - prohibit driving while under the influence of either, and restrict availability to young people. As for the possibility that someone already suffering from schizophrenia being adversely affected, this should be treated no differently than someone who is dangerously allergic to certain ingredients - they have to be careful to avoid them, except that in this case it's less likely that they will accidentally ingest any which is an ingredient in something else.

Moreover, by allowing personal cultivation and use you are ensuring that users are not constrained to acquire the cannabis from the same people who supply heroin and cocaine, and who have an interest in weaning the customers onto these more addictive and more expensive drugs.

Not only is Holland not trying to retrace its steps, as from next January, Switzerland and several other countries have legalised the personal cultivation and consumption of cannabis.

Emily Robins

Dec 16th 2011, 18:57

Just a little correction to your statement, there have been 19 marijuana-related deaths in the UK. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be annoying and I quite agree with legalisation of cannabis. But I couldn't resist to allow an error go by uncorrected!

Advert

Similar Stories

Popular Stories

  1. Old buses, drivers to return

  2. Former Judge Ray Pace found dead

  3. Updated: Minister apologises for...

  4. Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...

  5. Where’s Everybody staff is given notice

  6. Updated - Director of Prisons submits...

  7. Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...

  8. Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...

  9. Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...

In Discussion

  1. Old buses, drivers to return

  2. Updated: Minister apologises for...

  3. PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...

  4. Updated - Director of Prisons submits...

  5. Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...

  6. Protected birds shot and trapped as...

  7. Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...

  8. PN postpones salaries as financial...

  9. Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...

Advert

Copyright © Allied Newspapers Ltd., printed on - 24-05-2013 - Printed content is for personal use only, and should not be distributed