Since Kaya smoked one innocuous joint over six years ago and subsequently paid with his life, cannabis has come to haunt us again. Another concert, another question from Paul Bérenger, and another hysteria (though not quite at the same levels as in 1999). Time has passed, an inconclusive inquiry took place and we still have not come to terms with the phenomenon.

Cannabis smoking remains a reality of Mauritian life but, like so many other things, we conveniently sweep the problem aside. Meanwhile, belligerent conservatism towards any reasoned discussion continues to dominate any debate and utterances from all the responsible quarters. Last in date, to bellow at us about the nefarious effects of cannabis, is Dr. Fayzal Sulliman, coordinator of the medical research unit of the NATReSA (National Agency for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Substance Abusers). In an interview with this newspaper, he declared that substance abuse starts with the first cigarette. For the drug expert, the progression is linear from tobacco smoking to heroin injection, via cannabis. He went even further to say that he saw no distinction between the different drugs. But Dr. Sulliman was in no mood to be lenient that day. He went through the whole repertoire of the adverse effects of cannabis (impotence, pulmonary diseases, cancer etc.) to then conclude that it is wrong to claim that the drug is less dangerous than others.

<B>Misleading half-truths</B>

However, our drug expert conveniently decided to omit some glaring facts about cannabis. Let us take his claim about the potential dangers of the drug to human health. The truth is that a user cannot meet a horrible death due to an overdose of cannabis, while intravenous heroin addicts do on a regular basis. On this count only, cannabis is a less dangerous drug than heroin. And how about the graduation from cigarette to hard drugs, which Dr. Sulliman claims to occur in 90% of his patients. Just exactly where the correlation lies is baffling. In fact, it is very misleading in itself.

Approximately half the Mauritian male population smoke tobacco while the figures of the NATReSA show that 30,000 people aged between 15 and 54 consume cannabis. The number of heroin users was between 17,000 and 18,000. Clearly the majority of tobacco users never graduate to pumping heroin into their blood. While Dr. Sulliman’s claims might be true, such an attitude, when put in the context of the cannabis debate, is unhelpful.

But Dr. Sulliman is in good company in Mauritius. In such a society like ours, an outright denial in the face of certain realities allows such views to thrive. During the last electoral campaign, the government peddled around the notion that a vote for the opposition was a vote for decriminalisation of cannabis, without even engaging in the argument. The level of discussion revolves in how much political capital they can make out of an issue. This inability and unwillingness to challenge certain myths lead to a perpetual atmosphere of stagnation on the new direction the country needs. As on many subjects, abortion amongst others, there is a distinct lack of leadership.

Our general reaction to cannabis in Mauritius smacks more from ignorance than from anything else. Logic has long gone out of the window to make place for half-truths or more basic lies. In Europe and some American states, there is a consensus taking root that criminalisation of the drug does more harm than good. The Netherlands led the way, with the amendment of its Opium Act in 1976. By the nineties, it had made near legalisation a reality. Since, it has been taxing retail outlets that sell the product like any business. Furthermore, enormous resources were freed to tackle the more sinister effects of heroin or cocaine addiction.

One fact from the Dutch experience utterly rubbishes Dr. Sulliman’s claims of linear graduation from cigarette to hard drugs. Since the liberalisation of the laws in Holland, the number of hard drug addicts, which is around 28 000, has stabilised. Interestingly, their average age, at 38, is increasing, meaning that few young addicts are being added to the existing pool. Contrary to popular belief, the country has not made the drug legal.

No country can do that because of international treaties. Instead, it operates a formula of non-enforcement. The drug is still illegal but the state allows people to have a certain amount for personal consumption. Usage of the drug must also take place in the privacy of the house or in licensed premises. The crucial move by the Netherlands was its declassification of cannabis as a hard drug.

Increasing popularity</B>