Editorial: «Cannabis legalization can succeed in France, provided it's well thought out».»

Edito. What a surprise it was to read the «Courrier des Lecteurs» of France's biggest PQR newspaper 3 weeks ago: a "letter" from a certain Mr Pujol from Calvados who spontaneously wrote: «Legalize cannabis in France would be a mistake, here's what happened abroad».

However, Mr Pujol is no stranger to me. He regularly crosses paths with Jean Costentin, a prohibitionist doctor with an acerbic tongue. Without missing a beat, I took up my pen and wrote a reply to Ouest-France, published yesterday in «short version» to fit into the Courrier des lecteurs format.

I am publishing below the long version, which took up point by point the «arguments» of Jean-Pierre Pujol's initial letter.

“Dear Ouest-France,

You recently published a Letters to the editor signed by a certain Mr Pujol, denouncing what he sees as the «mistake» of legalizing cannabis.

This is not Mr. Pujol's first appearance in your newspaper: he has already published several anti-drug editorials. He is also a member of CNPERT (Centre national de prévention, d'études et de recherches sur les toxicomanies), an organization founded by Professor Jean Costentin - a doctor and member of the Académie de médecine, infamous for having recently proposed sterilizing drug users. A position so extreme that the Académie de Médecine itself disassociated itself from the project.

As is often the case, Mr. Pujol's comments are not informed by scientific nuance, but obscured by an ideological vision rooted in decades of prohibition. He paraphrases the latest opinion from the French Academy of Medicine on the legalization of cannabis without providing any personal or critical analysis. This Mail is therefore less a citizens' contribution than a prohibitionist communication operation.

Let's get some facts straight.

Pujol asserts:

«The legalization of cannabis regularly comes back into the political debate, arguing that this measure would pose no public health problem.»
That's not true: no one claims that legalization would have no effect on public health. On the contrary, it is seen as a public health policy, The aim is to provide a framework for what is already massive consumption in order to limit the risks.

«Hospitalizations due to cannabis have increased.»
The data quoted mainly concern children who have ingested food products containing cannabis. The study recommends to better regulate edible products, not to question legalization.

«The proportion of motorists hospitalized after an accident and positive for THC has doubled.»
THC can be detected up to several days after consumption, long after the effects have worn off. There is no evidence directly linking these accidents to active cannabis use.

«The number of psychotics has tripled.»
The study focuses on people already at risk of schizophrenia. It concludes that the annual incidence of schizophrenia is stable and that legalization has not increased the prevalence of these disorders in the population.

«Consumption is on the rise.»
It depends on the age group: in Canada, consumption fell in minors and increased in the over-65s. In the thirtysomething age group, it increases slightly but without increasing problematic consumption. In some cases, there is even a lower alcohol consumption whose misdeeds are well known.

«The black market persists.»
Yes, but it is from 100 % to 5 % of sales in Canada. It's a victory for regulation. Do we want to maintain the ban to protect drug dealers?

«Elsewhere, it has not been possible to set a minimum THC level.»
Mr. Pujol cites Uruguay, where the early varieties contained 2 % of THC. An aberration. Legislating on products with too low a dosage only feeds the black market. Effective regulation must be realistic.

«Legalizing would mean trivializing consumption among young people.»
This ignores the fact that the ban already fails to protect young people. Many products are banned for minors (tobacco, alcohol, driving), but this does not create a massive «draught». The issue is education, not the illusion of taboo.

The real scandal lies elsewhere.

• Cannabis is banned in France, and yet we have the highest rate of consumption among young people in Europe.
• Cannabis is banned, but 5 million French people consume it every year, including 1 million on a daily basis.
• Cannabis is banned, but it is legal or decriminalized in almost all our neighbors. Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland, the Netherlands... All are experimenting with adapted, data-driven regulatory models.

So what are we to make of legalization in France?

You may not like cannabis - but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. Clinging to prohibition is :

• continue to feeding criminal networks ;
• leave adulterated products in circulation, dangerous to health; ;
• maintain young people in contact with drug dealers and therefore other drugs; ;
• prevent users in difficulty to access appropriate care ;
• clogging up police and courts with minor offences to the detriment of their public safety mission.

Experience abroad shows that legalization can be successful, provided it is well thought-out. The greatest risk today is not legalization - it's getting stuck in ineffective, costly and dangerous prohibition.

As the world moves on, France isolates itself. It's time to get away from dogma and face reality.

The future won't be built with anathemas and fantasies, but with political courage and intellectual honesty.”