MAPS: !!!! Reply from Baroness Greenfield

[Peter Webster <vignes@xxxxxxxxx>]

From: "John Yates" <john.yates@xxxxxxxxxx
To: <ukcia-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [UKCIA] Reply from Baroness Greenfield
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:38:28 +0200

I sent the following email to Baroness Greenfield yesterday, 24.1.02:

***************************************************

Ms. Greenfield,

I have been following the debate about the possible legalisation of
cannabis and I am most interested in your assertions about the dangers of
this drug. From reading the available literature it would seem that you are
going very much against the scientific consensus. An article in the The
Times, August 6th, 2001 practically accuses you of peddling junk science:

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread10564.shtml

It would be most unfortunate if a person of such standing as yourself is
allowing a personal moral agenda to cloud scientific objectivity, and if it
is so it would seem to indicate that fiercly held opinions are no less
potent than powerful drugs in 'blowing the mind'.

Do you believe that the current consensus over the dangers of cannabis will
eventually change in the face of the arguments you are presenting from the
postion, at present, of a voice on the perifery? The other alternative, and
this seems to me so far to be the the most likely, is that the consensus
holds and the assertions of the authors of the Times article would be
vindicated.

I would be most grateful if you would send me a brief reply and say wether
cannabis really is as dangerous as you have so far asserted it is despite a
consensus based on long research and numerous scientific reports and why it
is that other distinguished scientists question your objectivity?

Yours,

John Yates

*********************************************************

I thought my email was a bit aggressive and didn't expect to hear from her,
but she must really be smarting over the Times article I posted yesterday,
because this morning I got the following reply:

**********************************************************

Dear Dr Yates

Thank you very much for your email of the 24th.   May I assure you that I
am in no way in a minority of scientists, school teachers, policemen and
psychiatrists, who are concerned about the risk of cannabis.   I think you
must have had a very biased access to literature, as there is a large
volume of scientific findings showing that cannabis can destroy brain
cells, causes long term irreversible attentional deficits, and enhances the
risk of psychotic events, even in those with no history of
schizophrenia.  Above and beyond these problems, I am also concerned that
cannabis may change the outlook of individuals in a negative sense.

I attach the following information sheets, and will be happy to forward
further reading on this if you will kindly let us have your postal address.

In the meantime, might I assure you that the strident article written in
The Times by Blakemore and Iversen was as wrong as it was offensive.  As
you will see from the attached information the doses of cannabis used in
the experimental studies were indeed within the range that would be taken
recreationally by humans.   I think that the offensive tone taken is surely
evidence that they did not feel they had a strong enough scientific base to
their comments.

If you have any thoughts or comments, please don't hesitate to get back to me.

Yours sincerely

Susan Greenfield

************************************************************

The attached papers are a bit big to flood the list with ( 3 papers of 25k
each), but it would be very interesting to continue the debate with the
professor and get comment on and analysis of the papers she sent me, the
problem is how to get these big files to interested parties and conduct the
analysis. Greenfield is a heavyweight and a formidable opponent, it would
be good if her evidence could be commented on by other heavyweights like
John Morgan or Lester Grinspoon.

John Yates


------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx
List archives: www.cerebral.org/~law/Maps.html
Guidelines for authors: www.maps.org/guidelines.txt
MAPS Forum is supported by a generous grant from the Promind Foundation.