Barbados

[palmspringsbum]

By Any Means Necessary? Part 1

The Barbados Advocate
Web Posted - Sun Jul 16 2006


As Chairman of one of the National Insurance Schemes Benefits (Appeals) Tribunals, I am privy to more than my fair share of visual evidence, anecdotes and opinions of the traumatic effects which chronic pain, especially neck and back pain, can have on the individual.

Accounts of constant agony, difficulty sleeping, inability to sit; stand or walk for prolonged periods, ruined sex lives, bizarre adverse reactions to painkillers&..it is an affliction I would not wish on anyone.

It might well be imagined therefore that anything which could provide the slightest relief from this existence of torment would be more than welcome, especially if its use is unaccompanied by any of the severe reactions so common in the traditional painkillers. What if there was, for some sufferers, such a magic bullet? Moreover, what if its use was illegal?

Barry Quayle, a 38 year old double amputee, was so wracked by pain that he sometimes took four hours just to get to sleep. The drugs prescribed for his condition knocked him out, he said, and as the single parent of two young children with Attention Deficit Disorder, he could ill afford that. He soon discovered that smoking cannabis gave him some relief and relaxed him to such an extent that he was often able to get to sleep within an hour.

One day, however, his house was searched and he was charged with the cultivation of cannabis in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971(UK). In defence to this charge he pleaded necessity; that his conduct was effected so as to prevent a greater harm to himself, but this was unsuccessful.

Reay James Wales, aged 53, found himself in similar circumstances. He had suffered a series of unfortunate mishaps during his lifetime which left him with the affliction of seven fractured vertebrae, a broken wrist, hepatitis, pancreatitis and rheumatoid arthritis, among others. This veritable poster boy for misfortune endured, according to him, life-threatening pain.

The anti-inflammatory drugs he had been prescribed caused him to bleed internally, so he too used marijuana for relief, wishing in vain that it was available in tablet form since he did not like smoking. He was later charged with the production of cannabis and, like Quayle, he pleaded the defence of necessity unsuccessfully. This process was repeated in two other cases until a jury acquitted one Mr Ditchfield on a charge of possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. He used to supply the cannabis to his sick friends for them to relieve their painful symptoms. His defence of necessity was accepted, unlike the others.

Seeking definitive clarification of this knotty point of law, the Attorney-General asked the Court of Appeal this question by way of reference:

Was the defence of necessity available to a defendant in respect of an offence of possession of cannabis& with intent to supply&.if his case was that he was in possession of [it] intending to supply it to another for the sole purpose of alleviating pain arising from a pre-existing illness such as multiple sclerosis?

Quayle and the others also appealed their convictions and these were all heard together with the reference.

There was considerable and cogent medical evidence before the Court that the use of cannabis is of some therapeutic benefit in pain management. One Fellow of the Royal College of Anaesthetists found in respect of Quayle that &[s]moking cannabis gives some assistance with his pain and insomnia. Without entering into the debate around legality, there is no question in my mind that this patient has taken cannabis with benefit to his chronic symptoms. Another expert in toxicology concluded that it was &quite feasible that the pain relief provided by cannabis would be as good if not better than other prescription medications for the treatment of these kinds of pain. Cannabis also produces relaxation and it is therefore likely to assist with any sleep problems that Mr Quayle may have& In Waless case, a consultant in anaesthesia and pain management testified that cannabis gives improved sleep, relief of muscle spasms and bladder spasms for patients with multiple sclerosis, relief of constipation, relaxation and relief of anxiety, misery and depression&, even though he conceded that many patients did not like to smoke it.

Nevertheless, he was clear that if he were able legally to write a prescription, he would be trying cannabis certainly for pain in the form of a preparation sprayed under the tongue. The medical evidence was overwhelmingly in the defendants favour especially since the prosecution did not adduce any in rebuttal. It preferred instead simply to rely on the law; that the production, supply, cultivation etc. of cannabis was a criminal offence, and that the defence of necessity was not available in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal first examined the legislative framework of the drug laws, adverting to their origins in the triad of United Nations Conventions between 1961 and 1988. It was noted that this history suggests that it was not until the Vienna Convention of 1988 that the criminalisation of drug activity for personal use was mandated; this matter having previously been left up to each States constitutional limitations. Even the 1988 Convention itself, which obliges the States Parties to impose criminal sanctions in the case of trafficking, merely leaves the punishment of possession, purchase and cultivation for personal use up to a states constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system.

Nevertheless, the reality is that most, if not all, countries have criminalised even these matters, although there are substantial variations in the penalties for their commission and, as the CA noted, the process of prosecution from the initial contact with the police through to consideration by the courts does allow for a sympathetic approach to the genuine therapeutic user.

In the present proceedings however, the critical issue was whether absent such consideration, a defence of necessity could provide a complete defence to the respective charges as a matter of law.

I shall deal with this next week. (Jeff Cumberbatch is a law consultant.)

[palmspringsbum]

Best On Tuesday – In the grip of 'pot'

Published on: 2/4/08.

The Nation Newspaper
BY ROBERT BEST


IT IS SETTLED that much of the crime in Barbados is drug-related, whether the drug of choice is cocaine or marijuana; and that among the young people, marijuana use is accounting for most of their delinquency.

A few days ago, Magistrate Faith Marshall-Harris drew attention to the problems created when juveniles used "pot", noting that "the child who is wandering, the child who is not performing in school, the child who is now stealing and so on ..... that in fact drugs are a major engine of juvenile offences".

She went on to warn the country that it was a trend that prevailed right across society with the problems surfacing mainly among the 13 to 17 age-group.

Her observations about the problems "pot" was posing among teenagers were disturbing enough but still there will be those among us who might want to shrug it all off as just déjà vu, as this approach would also confirm that we have become a society in which the use of "pot" is highly tolerated, along with the use of alcohol, with the use of "pot" regarded as illegal while alcohol is not.

Our tolerance of alcoholic use tends to place the onus on the user for not being able "to hold his drinks", if and when the worst results from its use. The fear is that smoking "pot" could see us adopting a similar approach if we are not careful.

Already there is a school of thought that "pot" users should be left to smoke if they want to, and this group does draw attention to society's tolerance of alcohol beverages when making a case that the use of "pot" should be legal. Yet, among medical sources the use of "pot" continues to emerge as being more detrimental to users than the use
of alcohol.

The argument here is that while alcohol does create problems for the human body, the process in doing so is slower than it is with "pot" and while addiction to alcohol also has to be considered, the addiction to "pot" is faster and more devastating.

However, not to be put off, the "pot" school points out that the drug also has some medicinal value just as might be claimed for alcohol but they seldom accept that research has shown that brain cells break down faster and the devastation is more widespread among "pot" users.

Furthermore, while it is accepted that we have problems in society with both drugs, ongoing research has shown that while alcohol can and does undermine the functions of the liver of heavy users, a heavy use of "pot" is now linked to chronic lung disease – including emphysema and cancer.

Let us not forget that in a number of countries tobacco use is also not favoured but it is also noted that "pot" users have been mixing "pot" with tobacco when smoking, and reports out of Britain have been claiming that this "complicates the situation".

There is no reason to believe that this "complication" is not part of the Barbados "pot" scene, and it should be noted that the researchers claim that there is a higher risk of lung cancer for those who smoke one joint a day compared to those who smoked 20 cigarettes a day over the same period.

The researchers, in accounting for the difference, suggested that it was because "pot" smokers inhaled more deeply and for longer periods than cigarette smokers.

One aspect of the argument against the use of "pot", according to the researchers, is that more attention has been paid to the effects of "pot" on the brain than what its use can do to the lungs.

Which brings us back to another suggestion made by Marshall-Harris about how we should deal with the problem of illegal drug use. She said that the drugs should not only be highlighted as illegal but it should be pointed out that they are detrimental to one's health.

Her point is valid. But then we find that in spite of what research has shown about the detrimental effects of "going to pot", many of our people – young and old – do not hearken to advice. They prefer to be "high" rather than healthy.


<i>Robert Best is a former managing editor of the Barbados Advocate. </i>