View report page

64
to each female and addiction is rare in those over 35. There is,
however, a high incidence of barbiturate dependence in women
over 35 years and, although not confined solely to this group, it
would appear to be interchangeable with alcohol dependence.
Evidence as to whether cannabis leads to heroin addiction can
never be conclusive but this is not to disregard the fact that numbers
of patients on heroin started as users of "pot". Moreover,
despite the lack of accurate statistics, many doctors and lawyers
agree that in their minds and as a result of their professional
experiences cannabis is associated with crime, violence and abnormality
but, above all, with the degeneration of personality. Although
such observations cannot replace cold scientific evidence
they may well prove to have a basis in fact.
It is a fact that young people, generally, are inclined to be
"agin" the establishment and the cannabis cult could conceivably
be an expression of social defiance. Regrettably, in a number of
instances, this leads to addiction to the more dangerous drugs.
Progression from "soft" to "hard" drugs, especially in the
young, is one of the most disturbing and distressing features of this
serious problem. It was, therefore, somewhat startling to find in
1967 that there was sufficient support in the country to enable
advertisements to appear in the national press in favour of
legalising cannabis.
This stimulated the establishment of a special Sub-Committee
under the auspices of the government's Advisory Committee on
Drug Dependence to enquire into this particular aspect of drug
addiction. Results of this investigation are contained in the
Wootton Report.
Unfortunately, this Report appeared to reach conclusions not in
accord with the authoritative evidence and arguments presented
to it and the government decided not to act on its recommendations,
viz., that it would be wrong to legalise the use of cannabis
but the penalties should be reduced. This was paradoxical in that
the Report acknowledged the dangers inherent in the use of cannabis
but wanted the deterrents minimised, and it argued in favour of
preserving freedom of choice in such a matter of individual concern.
A cardinal error was perpetrated by the Report in defending
"pot" on the grounds that it was no more harmful than alcohol or
tobacco.
It is perhaps true that evidence of the effects of cannabis is, as
yet, inconclusive, nevertheless, it would seem logical that where
there is possible physical or mental danger, a fact which the Report
recognises, public safeguards are necessary until proved otherwise.
Most adverse reports concerning cannabis come from the