Letters: Cannabis and schizophrenia

Cannabis is causing treatment-resistant forms of schizophrenia

Sir: It is true that cannabis cannot "cause" schizophrenia, largely an inherited condition (report, 21 July). What cannabis does is to increase the risk of a first-episode psychosis in people genetically predisposed to developing schizophrenia.

There is undoubtedly a trend for young people to be first exposed to cannabis at an earlier age, in their early teens or before. First, it brings forward the onset of schizophrenia in those predisposed individuals, producing forms of the illness more likely to be treatment-resistant. Second, the effect of cannabis on the still developing brain is largely unknown.

There are two large categories of young people who develop psychosis, distinct from schizophrenia: one, triggered directly by cannabis use, is "drug-induced psychotic disorder", and in the other, "acute and transient psychotic disorder", cannabis is often implicated.

Both conditions can be debilitating, with frightening symptoms lasting months, and huge disruption to family and college life, often requiring admission to in-patient mental health facilities.

The work of my team, which was set up to help young people (aged between 15 and 35) suffering their first-episode psychosis would be greatly reduced if cannabis did not exist. The"skunk" now plentiful in Britain, three times the strength of the usual "home-grown" variety, induces paranoia and hallucinations more frequently. It is similar to the difference between knocking back two pints of ale and two pints of wine.

Unless we are able to develop creative programmes for really engaging young people with this issue in schools and colleges more youngsters' careers will be blighted and more families will suffer the misery of preventable mental illness.

DR CHARLES MONTGOMERY

CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST, WONFORD HOUSE HOSPITAL, EXETER

Call to support the Heathrow ban

Sir: I have to voice support for the British Airport Authority injunction plan (front page, 28 July). It is important that BAA's commercial interests be protected from the members of the Woodland Trust and other like-minded earthists.

The injunction should be implemented in full, with no exceptions. Everyone who is a member of these organisations, such as the National Trust, who goes within 100m of an airport installation should be prevented from doing so.

This may be inconvenient for RSPB members who had intended to fly from Heathrow that week, but they too should be prevented from doing so. Of course, taxi, coach and bus drivers need to be vetted, and any airline or even BAA staff who belong to these subversive sects will be rooted out for the fifth columnists they clearly are.

There may be a problem with the likes of National Trust members flying into Heathrow, but co-operation with the airlines that use Heathrow should ensure such people are prevented from boarding the planes in the country of origin.

BAA must not waver, but follow through to the logical conclusion of the course on which they have embarked, to fulfil its duty to protect the airport from protests that may disrupt passengers.

RAMSAY DUNNING

HOOK NORTON, OXFORDSHIRE

Sir: I am a member of the National Trust and the CPRE and I am flying out of Heathrow during the planned "week of action" next month. I can only hope that the BAA injunction is successful in keeping campaigners from disrupting my holiday.

Nowadays, travellers have to run the gauntlet of uninsurable risks from accidents on the M25 to bombs planted by terrorists, strikes by aggrieved workers and now disruption caused by climate-change campaigners.

Strikers and campaigners are the same as the desperado who, when faced by the law officer, says, "Drop your gun or the kid gets it".

We, the innocent travellers, are hostages plain and simple. Our suffering is the means by which pressure is brought to bear by people who have no thought beyond the righteousness of their own cause.

After a long period of electoral abstinence, I would vote for anyone who promised to bring the full weight of the law to bear on those who wilfully disrupt essential services.

Hopefully, they would also have the sense to see that the only way to limit air travel would be to ration it by price and/or controls and the courage to take the necessary action.

The prospects of such people appearing on the political scene in the foreseeable future is, I agree, remote. In the meantime, I intend to get to Heathrow next month, even if I have to fight my way in.

P N RANDELL

WOKING, SURREY

Sir: As a family, we are all members of the RSPB. If BAA succeed in their plans, they will potentially criminalise me, my wife and my three daughters, aged respectively, four, 11 and 13.

This plan has incensed me because, as parents encouraging children to take an interest in their environment, we could be detained by the police.

We could be arrested in front of, or along with, our children. What effect would this have on our children? The ludicrous extension is that their crayons could be taken from them as potential weapons.

This is not about terrorism. This is purely and simply about the power of large organisations wanting to do what they want with no cause for concern about the environment or civil liberties. It is purely about profit.

Our liberties have been hard fought for and should not be subject to the profit-hungry needs of business conglomerates. We were considering travelling abroad next year. If we do, it will be by ferry or via an airport that is not controlled by BAA.

JONATHAN BARNES

HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE

Sir: The simple answer to the absurd injunction plan by the British Airport Authority is for everyone belonging to those organisations named to inform the police they intend to go to London, use the Piccadilly Line and go to the airport on any particular day.

The police will be so irritated by BAA that the Government will have to intervene to stop the nonsense. Play the law against itself and make it ridiculous.

BENEDICT COWELL

POWYS, CYMRU

Sir: When I saw your front page in my newsagent's shop, I must have seemed a right wally, At first I laughed, but then I realised the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (which, as the comedian Mark Thomas points out, means you can be arrested for eating a cake with "Peace" written on it in icing) demonstrates that laws this laughable may actually be put into practice.

Will people's charity memberships be recorded on their biometric ID cards? Will alarms sound and police arrive each time one of such cards comes near the Piccadilly line or the M4? If all you are trying to do is get from A to B, with no intention to protest, will your very existence be a punishable offence?

Personally, I was going to wait until I had my first teaching post and felt a bit richer to join the Woodland Trust, but now I intend to do so as soon as possible. I wish them, and all the other protesters, every success with their campaign.

ALICE SHEPPARD

HAVERFORDWEST, PEMBROKESHIRE

Where's the money for flood victims?

Sir: I read with interest that Gordon Brown will increase the aid for flooding from £14m to £46m. As one of the thousands of householders flooded in recent days, I note that this money will be made available to deal with the "effects" of the flooding.

Can I, on behalf of my wife and my neighbours, ask when we will receive our small piece of this aid? Or will this huge amount of money disappear down that black hole we know as local government, never to be heard of again? If anybody can let us know the address of this provider of aid I will be very grateful, and more than a little surprised.

DANIEL J NOONAN

WITNEY, OXFORDSHIRE

Sir: A few weeks ago, the Government proposed spending many millions on a seawater conversion plant on the Thames to provide water.

Would it not be better value and be more beneficial to build deep reservoirs at the crucial flood-points? This would have a double advantage. It would contribute more wholesome water to our homes and alleviate floods.

MONICA LISSAK

LONDON SE13

Sir: They say a week is a long time in politics: so too in journalism. In the 18 July Independent property section, the city of Gloucester is described as "a new hotspot" with a "high degree of new house-building near the docks and on the city edges".

Apparently, "there is a pleasing maritime feel to the place", but perhaps it's best not to mention that.

ROGER HEWELL

BATH

No proof of any link to real violence

Sir: I am responding to Andrew Schofield's comments about the film Hostel 2 and other violent films and video games. There is no proof that any of the real-life incidents he mentions were in any way influenced by scenes in the titles he mentions, or anything else they saw on TV, or their computers for that matter.

This is an age-old argument and if there were any proof of a causal link, one would have been discovered by now. But the fact of the matter is, it hasn't. The UK still has stricter censorship laws than most other European countries, yet those countries which have more liberal laws do not have higher crime rates.

Just because people who have violent tendencies may view violent material does not mean it's the cause of their behaviour. Violent crime has been going on long before films and computers and I think he would find, if they were all banned tomorrow, violent crime would not suddenly disappear.

As a lifelong fan of the horror genre, and as a person who occasionally plays "shoot-em-up" video games, I have never felt the need for exacting acts of wanton violence on members of the public. At the end of the day, everyone knows right from wrong and the difference between fantasy and reality.

These entertainment media are pure fantasy for people who enjoy being shocked by graphic excesses. That does not mean they would necessarily like to see these scenes in real life.

SIMON TAYLOR

BOSTON, LINCOLNSHIRE

Boycott also aimed at Israel's backers

Sir: Boycotts, like other forms of sanctions, exert external pressure upon a state with the aim of forcing it to change its behaviour (Letters, 19 July).

By their very nature, they contravene the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination. In a world where great powers routinely trample on the sovereignty of small, weak states, it is more than ever necessary to defend this hard-won democratic right against those who would casually discard it.

Present-day Israel is the exception that proves this rule, for two reasons. First, Israel brutally denies sovereignty to the Palestinian people. Second, it can maintain this policy only thanks to the economic, political and military support of the US and Europe.

The "boycott Israel" campaign, just like the "boycott apartheid South Africa" campaign, is aimed as much at the western companies and governments who sustain Israel's subjugation of the Palestinians as it is at Israel itself.

JOHN SMITH

SHEFFIELD

Briefly... It's Amer-English

Sir: There seem to be many Americanisms creeping in to our language, unnecessary ones when there are perfectly good words in English English. But "First Night", by Pierre Perrone (27 July), was too much. In the first paragraph , "... could only have gotten into the ..."

PETER WHYBROW

HITCHIN, HERTFORDSHIRE

Warnings of war

Sir: P J O'Rourke says (25 July): "It's amazing no one seems to have foreseen the wrath, the bitterness and the depth of the anger and violence that followed the war [in Iraq]." In March 2003, Robert Fisk's article ("For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why do we never learn?") ended by predicting that the invasion of Iraq would generate a mess similar to that made by the British in Palestine, of which Churchill wrote: "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet."

MARK RASMUSSEN

QUAKER MEETING HOUSE, LONDON E11

Britain's betrayal

Sir: In 1947, Clement Attlee betrayed the Karen people of Burma by selling arms to the enemy tribe who had seized power after independence from Britain (report, 26 July). Churchill complained in the Commons. But the Labour government went ahead. The responsibility of the UK for the Karens who fought for us in the Second World War is clear.

ROSE MOLONEY

FINDHORN, MORAY

Aesop's fox

Sir: Brilliant as Howard Jacobson is (Comment, 28 July), he has misapplied Aesop's fable. The hungry fox wants the grapes, but when he cannot reach them he softens his disappointment by claiming they were not ripe anyway. Jacobson clearly does not want to write like J K Rowling, so any criticism he makes of Harry Potter cannot be dismissed as "sour grapes". He may, as I do, envy her wealth, but that's another matter.

STEWART TROTTER

LONDON W9

In memory of Gong

Sir: With reference to Giles Barrett's letter (27 July) concerning "space music" and Sun Ra being the only known exponent, could I mention the band Gong, who not only played space music but hailed from the planet Gong?

DAVID R POLLARD

HECKMONDWIKE, YORKSHIRE

Price is right

Sir: Professor Igor Aleksander (letter, 26 July) should have done his homework. He could have travelled from London to Leeds and return via GNER for £30, all on one ticket with no change of train.

TERENCE ROY SMITH

BIGGLESWADE, BEDFORDSHIRE

Pass the puppy, please

Sir: The article ("Another helping of fried hamster? Yes please!", 28 July) reminded me of a joke Vietnamese tell. "Westerners think we don't like dogs. We do. We have them as pets. We only eat our neighbours' dogs."

FRED LITTEN

CROYDON, SURREY