27/02/2018 Newsnight

Theresa May has a plan for Brexit.

On Friday she's going to spell it

out for us in a big speech...

Her problem is that the EU have

killed it off already.

TRANSLATION:

It is an illusion

to imagine that we are going

to accept cherry picking.

We are responsible for maintaining

the integrity of the single market.

There's also trouble ahead

over the Irish border.

And whether we meant it when we said

there wouldn't be one.

We'll get the Irish perspective.

And hear how the Brexiteers

want to deal with the problems.

Also tonight: the tragic

death of Zac Cox...

A British man working

on the construction

of a new stadium in Qatar.

I find this probably

the most traumatic piece of

information that we've got.

You can see this is where

Zac apparently landed.

So you can see his safety

harness which has been cut.

You can see the ropes.

You can see his shoe

and you can see the dent in the

structure which is

probably where he fell.

A new study says

street cannabis is getting

dangerously strong.

When he

-- when you use skunk you are five

times more likely to develop

psychosis compared with somebody who

does not use it.

Does that make it more

or less sensible to legalise

the weaker forms of the drug.

And this...

LAUGHTER.

John Sweeney gets

full on snow madness.

Hello.

Let's be clear.

The EU is not making it

easy for Theresa May.

Michel Barnier made clear today that

Brussels will hold clear

to its own goals rather than bend

to help the Prime Minister.

It now feels as if this is the week

that the fudge could hit the fan -

to use a phrase of one

Brexit expert.

So let's look at why this

is all becoming so difficult.

Last December, with a lot

of fanfare, we signed a Joint Report

with the EU on the terms

of our divorce.

Tomorrow, the EU publishes

its suggested legal version of that,

hardening up some of the unresolved

ambiguity of the December version.

Notably on the issue

of the Irish border.

So that's headache number one.

Complicated by the position

of Boris Johnson.

More on that later.

But then, headache number two

relates to our long term trading

relationship with the EU.

At a press conference today,

Michel Barnier was clear

that the carefully constructed

cabinet compromise

on that is a non-starter.

Here's Nick Watt.

An exasperated minister has

an arresting analogy

for the Brexit negotiations.

They are now like the iconic scene

in the spaghetti western, The Good,

The Bad, And The Ugly.

Who will shoot first?

This minister asked me.

As if on cue, one of the characters

in the real-life stand-off popped up

to make clear that the EU is now

spoiling for a fight.

Michel Barnier was dismissive

of Britain's plans for its future

trading relationship with the EU,

which Theresa May will outline

in a major speech on Friday.

TRANSLATION:

It is an illusion

to imagine that we are going

to accept cherry picking.

We are responsible for maintaining

the integrity of the single market.

The UK knows the rules that

underpins the integrity

because they worked with us

to create them for 43 years.

Tomorrow the European Commission

will publish its full legal text

of the UK's withdrawal treaty.

Amid frustration in Brussels

that the UK is not rising

to the challenge, the EU is planning

to tighten its demands

on the Irish border.

This busy thoroughfare is the latest

source of irritation in the EU.

After Boris Johnson appeared

to liken the change in road signs

between two London boroughs

to the Northern Ireland border.

The Foreign Secretary said

the success of cameras in collecting

the congestion charge shows how

the dilemma of the Northern Ireland

border after Brexit can be resolved

with a little imagination.

Ireland's's governing

party is unimpressed.

I suppose I was a little surprised,

but I'm never shocked

by what Boris Johnson says,

so I'm taking it with

a slight grain of salt.

But it's much more serious

than that, because I represent

a constituency that borders

with Northern Ireland,

and we know very well the downside

if things go wrong with Brexit.

So I would hope Boris Johnson

would have a better understanding

that we are not talking about two

boroughs in the United Kingdom,

or in London, we're talking

about two sovereign nations.

Downing Street is for once relaxed

about the Foreign Secretary.

Sources say he was simply making

a general call for original thinking

and isn't suggesting that cameras

should be placed along

the Irish border.

The Government's plans involve no

infrastructure along the border

and simply call for digital

innovation to track goods.

This is not the 19th century

where we have moustachioed customs

officers wearing caps

with epaulettes peering

into your barracks.

Almost all customs clearance is done

electronically and in advance.

That process is becoming easier

as technology advances.

There is something going

on with some of our negotiating

partners in Brussels,

not so much in the 27 capitals,

where, you know, if you asked them

the time of day they say no cherry

picking, you can't have

your cake and eat it.

The UK Government has come out

with a series of friendly

and imaginative ways to maintain

the closest possible cooperation.

And this has been our position

right from the beginning,

right from Theresa May's Lancaster

house speech saying she wanted

the UK to be the EU's best

friend and closest ally.

The Brexit stand-off

is now underway.

Who, if anyone, will be riding

off into the sunset?

Nick's here now and so is our

business editor Helen Thomas.

The other story today was Liam Fox

spelling out his vision. And also

trying to counter the claims of his

former secretary who said giving up

the EU for future trade deals is

like giving up a three course meal

with the promise of a packet of

crisps. Take us through that

particular argument.

Let's take a

look at the big picture.

The EU is a big chunk -

44% - of exports.

But it has been getting smaller.

Over the last decade.

The Liam Fox view of the world

is that 90% of economic growth over

the next decade is forecast to come

from places outside the EU.

So that's where we should focus.

But there is good evidence that

countries trade more with places

that are big and rich

and close to them.

Which is why the EU is important.

Let's take the government numbers -

from that Brexit analysis leaked

to Buzzfeed last month.

Here's the three-course meal.

This looked at how much lower UK

growth might be over

15 years after Brexit.

So it was 2% lower

in the softest Brexit

scenario, where we remain

in the European Economic Area.

5% with a free trade

agreement with the EU.

-- 5% lower with a free trade

agreement with the EU.

And then 8% in a hard, WTO scenario.

Now the crisps.

They are the deals.

So that same analysis -

assumed that a trade deal

with the US would add 0.2% to GDP

in the long term.

Trade deals with everyone

else - China, India,

Australia, Southeast Asia -

would add 0.1% to 0.4% in total.

They are the small bites.

OK. They

are small numbers. How much weight

should be put on them?

They look

strangely small.

But when we were

talking about TTIP -

or a deal between the EU and US -

it was estimated that it

could boost UK GDP by 0.14% -

0.35% over a decade.

And actually the EU's analysis

of its own trade deals -

comes up with similarly small

benefits to GDP.

The caveat is that it is hard to

model the benefits of the deal,

particularly when it comes to

removing nontariff barriers, which

is most of the benefits. Liam Fox

was asked about this. He said he

didn't recognise that choice. We

want a deal with the EU, we are

pursuing deals elsewhere, and we are

rolling over EU deals into UK law.

He wants his meal, his crisps, it

may a burger on the side, whatever

it may be.

Thank you. Boris Johnson

has had quite a day. There has been

a leak, a letter about the Irish

border to Theresa May, tell us about

it.

The front page of the Daily

Telegraph. It says Boris raises the

prospect of a hard border in

Ireland. This is off the back of a

letter leaked by Boris Johnson to

the PM to Sky News in which he

raises that very prospect. He isn't

saying that he wants that to happen,

but he is saying that if it does

happen we shouldn't worry because in

that scenario 95% plus of goods

would cross that border on

unchecked. Why is he saying this? He

is saying this because he fears that

in seeking a 100% guarantee of no

hard border, the Prime Minister is

in danger of paying too high a

price. At that price could raise

questions about the ultimate UK

endgame, which is this ambitious,

managed both urgent from the EU. Now

the -- number ten has said there

will be no hard border along the

island border. -- managed divergence

from the EU.

The Tory MP Bernard Jenkin

is with me - but first let's

speak to Neale Richmond,

he's the Irish government

spokesman on EU affairs.

The legal agreement, I'm confused

about this legal agreement we are

going to get tomorrow, because it

seems to say that in the absence of

any other solution Northern Ireland

has to align itself on everything

with the EU. Is that what you

understand the legal agreement is?

This draft legal text is the legal

manifest -- manifestation between EU

and the British negotiating team. We

resolve all issues as close as

possible. We want to be working

together. The second option is

awaiting the data from the British

Government. We've been waiting quite

some time for that. The third option

is the backstop, which is something

nobody wants, that will ensure the

entire island of Ireland maintains

that Customs alignment to make sure

there is no return to a border.

That

is the backstop, sorry to interrupt,

can you tell me, in that backstop

world, which is the only one being

written into the first draft of

this, in that Wyatt Russell single

market customs union border go

exactly? -- in that backstop. You

have obviously thought about the

backstop, you are happy with it,

where does your border, the EU

border with the UK, the non-single

market customs union, where does it

go?

We are not happy with the

backstop. We accept it.

Where does

the border go? Please answer.

It is

a bit simplistic to put it like

that. It means there was no border

on the island of Ireland. It means

Northern Ireland is in full

alignment with the European Union.

Where does the market border go?

When a ship arrives at the north of

Ireland with goods. Is there a

border? Is there no EU border?

It

would be a matter for the UK to

implement that throughout the

entire...

We can then send

everything we have got, sorry to be

aggressive, if you are imposing no

board anywhere, what is going to

stop UK...

I'm not proposing

anything. This is a draft agreement.

Where does the border go? You are

not able to tell me.

I never once

said there was no border. I said

there was no border on the island of

Ireland.

Where is it?

Between the

remainder of the UK with the EU.

You

will put EU customs posts in

Northern Ireland to stop... At

Belfast Airport to stop people

flying, goods flying from Britain to

Northern Ireland? There will be EU

customs post in Belfast stopping

stuff coming from Britain into

Belfast? Is that your proposal?

No.

But you just said.

Let me finish.

The agreement from both British and

European sides in December, and this

isn't just a European decision, this

is a draft based on the political

agreement in December. It refers to

a joint EU UK customs union.

Wait

there. What is your solution?

You are seeing de-escalation from

the Irish Republic government. They

do not want to threaten a hard

water. I will say what Theresa May

will not say but I know that she

thinks. We are not having a hard

water in Northern Ireland under any

circumstances. If the EU wants a

hard border and put things up at the

border then that is their problem.

But this country has signed an

agreement that says if we do not

agree a border we will line. That is

the agreement that we signed.

The

word alignment is not regulatory

alignment, it is highly ambiguous

and a rather fudged agreement.

Full

alignment, with the rules of the

customs union.

It is a somewhat

fudged agreement.

You're just trying

to backslide from something you

signed up to.

It does not refer to

regulatory alignment.

The rules of

the internal market and Customs

union.

In trade agreements alignment

and regulatory alignment are

different things.

You're just trying

to backslide on an agreement.

I am

clear there is going to be no hard

border in Northern Ireland. I'm also

clear worst-case scenario, unless

the EU is so stupid they do not want

a trade agreement at all, we will at

least have some Canada or Canada

plus agreement. Michel Barnier has

said that. In which case, and as

Bertie Ahern has said and and Kenny

used to say, that we do not need a

hard border in Northern Ireland. And

here is a paper published by the

European Parliament and drafted by

the Secretary

the Secretary General of the world

customs Organisation saying you do

not need a hard border. You can use

technology and risk based policing.

Are you running out completely any

kind of technological solution to

the issue that the British want to

divert from the single market and

Customs union regulations and that

means some kind of checks at the

border?

What Wiggo one is the

agreement in December made by both

the European negotiating side and

British Government. We're staying

true to that agreement that will be

no return to a border on the island

of Ireland. People talk about

electronic options but we have seen

no detail. Brexit happens in 13

months. Reassuring speeches and

soothing noises are no use at this

stage unless we see substantive

detail which we have not seen. There

is no real solution. By maintaining

there is no border on the island of

Ireland.

Effectively you are saying

the UK must have a border, an

internal border and you're going to

police that on the side.

We're not

going to police it, it will be the

UK and the EU together. This is what

was agreed. An agreement between the

government and the European

Commission.

Thank you very much.

Very quickly yesterday we saw those

the that Parliament will put us in a

customs union anyway. Do you think

that Theresa May can remain as Prime

Minister with Parliament instructed

her to put us in a customs union and

then lead Britain into a customs

union?

I do not think Parliament

will vote for a customs union but if

it did it would be pretty

existential for her administration

and her authority. So for that

reason I do not think many of my

colleagues would support the

opposition on this and I also expect

rather more Labour MPs will be

voting as we saw from people like

Frank Field at the weekend, rather

more Labour MPs supporting the

government. Because if we stay in

the customs union were not

delivering the referendum result.

I'm so sorry, we have already

overrun.

As one of the Gulf States,

one of the richest countries

in the world, and the host

of the 2022 World Cup,

you will not be surprised to hear

that Qatar has imported hundreds

of thousands of workers

to build its facilities.

You will also not be surprised

to hear that many deaths have

occured on the construction sites -

although the precise

numbers are disputed -

and that Qatar has been much

criticised for the treatment

of its migrant labour.

But you may not have heard

about the case of Zac Cox,

a British man who died just over

a year ago, while working on roof

walkways on the Khalifa Stadium.

He fell 40 metres, after his safety

line failed to hold him.

It's a tragedy, compounded

by the difficulty of his relatives

to get a full official account

of what happened.

Today, a coroner in Brighton ruled

Mr Cox had been working in

a 'downright dangerous' environment.

His family, friends and colleagues

do not want to let the issue drop.

Katie Razzall has been

speaking to them.

He was very, very kind.

He brought as much joy

as he could to those around him.

A thoughtful man.

Zac Cox died in Qatar

in January 2017.

A rope access technician,

Zac had been involved in renovating

one of the World Cup 2022 stadiums

when he fell 40 metres to his death.

This is the Doha the

authorities want you to see.

The Khalifa Stadium was the first

World Cup venue to be finished

and is already hosting events.

But behind the scenes

the picture is less clear.

Figures have been claimed

and disputed about how many

construction workers have died

building World Cup

projects in Qatar.

Zac died after equipment failed

high up in the stadium.

This is information that we've

gained from various sources

from Zac's colleagues.

Zac Cox's family agreed to give

Newsnight their first

television interview.

A full 13 months after his death.

They had kept quiet,

they say, as Qatari

processes ran their course.

But are left feeling frustrated.

It is deeply distressing.

You know, you have lost a loved one,

a very, very dear friend.

And no one has been

held responsible.

There's no sense that anyone

will held accountable and we have no

confidence that lessons will be

learned and other families won't be

put in this horrific situation.

Here is Zac and you can see how this

is one element of the catwalk.

Mr Cox had been working in a team

of three, installing catwalks that

were to hold lighting and other

equipment near the roof

of the stadium.

I find this probably

the most traumatic piece

of information that we've got.

You can see this is where

Zac apparently landed.

So you can see his safety

harness which has been cut.

You can see the ropes.

You can see his shoe.

And you can see the dent

in the structure which is

probably where he fell.

From the beginning of the lever

hoist failing to Zac hitting

the ground was about three

and a half seconds, I think.

It was, it was a big fall.

I was working parallel

to Zac and his team.

On another set of catwalks.

All of a sudden we heard a large

bang and looked over to see

the chain running through the block

of the lever hoist.

And the catwalk

started falling away.

Zac's close friend and colleague

John Johnson saw what happened.

He says one of the bits of equipment

called a lever hoist that the teams

were using to hold up the catwalks

until they could be

permanently fixed, failed.

Zac was standing on the catwalk that

lever hoist was supposed to support.

Zac got pulled towards

the slings that were holding

the lever hoist up.

And the weight of the catwalk was

entirely on Zac then, on his line.

Which then failed and the catwalk

swung away leaving Zac

to fall to the ground.

And how far did he fall?

I believe it was 39 metres.

The falling lever hoist rigging had

caught Zac's safety rope.

Unable to bear the added weight

of the catwalk, the rope snapped.

Another colleague, Graham Vantz,

who had been standing near Zac Cox

on the adjacent catwalk,

and who had watched him fall,

was arrested that day.

He was released, but prevented

from leaving Qatar for 11 months.

Wrongly blamed for the death.

He was eventually exonerated.

Throughout that time the family

didn't want to speak publicly

for fear of harming his case.

For a year the family said

they have been kept almost

completely in the dark.

Recently they got hold

of the internal investigation

report, carried out immediately

after Zac Cox's death by the stadium

contractors and overseen

by the Supreme Committee,

the Qatari body responsible for

delivering World Cup infrastructure.

Despite promises of cooperation

they said this document

was never given to them

through official channels.

It was undertaken by

the companies involved

and by the Supreme Committee

but we have never been given

that document formally.

It's the clearest account

of what happened to Zac and why.

And the fact it's been there,

and nothing is happening to it,

and no one is going to read it,

and it's not going to lead

to any other sequence of events

where people are actually held

to account, is deeply distressing.

The report revealed what they'd

suspected, that there were issues

with some of the equipment

the teams were using.

One of the key things in this report

was the page that talks very clearly

about the equipment being used

and the fact that it

was in poor condition.

It had no third-party

certification available.

But yet it was labelled

up and provided to Zac

and his colleagues to use

in their work.

Under normal circumstances,

that equipment should have

been put in the bin.

Without the relevant

and appropriate certification.

But yet it was used for a team

of people who were working 40 metres

up above ground level.

In my opinion that's

beyond devastating.

The investigation report

says the subcontractor

Pfeifer accepted equipment

from another subcontractor,

Eversendai.

But that equipment was in poor

condition and didn't

have the correct certification.

This is denied by Pfeifer

and the main contractors,

Midmac Sixco, who say far

from being substandard,

the equipment was fit for use.

According to John Johnson the teams

had run out of lever hoists,

so some were borrowed.

There were parts missing.

They were rusty.

We knew that this stuff wasn't

suitable for use in such a project.

And why did you think

it was being used, why was it

there if it shouldn't have been?

I believed we were using it

because we had run out

of our own equipment, which was...

The equipment from Pfeifer

was second to none and

the best in the world.

We had no problems using it.

We had used it in other

projects before.

No problems.

But we ran out.

I believe that batch

of lever hoists we borrowed,

should never have been on site.

Zac lived on the south

coast in Brighton.

Born in Johannesburg,

he'd married a Briton.

Today, family members arrived

at Brighton's Coroner's Court

for the conclusion of the inquest

into Zac's death.

We heard details of his

fall and how he likely

died instantaneously.

But much of the evidence

concerned the contents

of the investigation report,

detailing the poor condition

of the lever hoists given

to the teams after Christmas 2016.

John Johnson, who also lives

in Brighton, described how he shored

up the lever hoists he used

with ratchet straps because he was

so worried about their state.

The coroner was clear

with the family, that liability

didn't come into her remit.

Her job, she said, was to find

out how Zac Cox died,

not who was responsible.

Especially, she added,

as the people and companies involved

in renovating the stadium weren't

in court to answer

for their actions.

But this afternoon in her summing

up she was damning.

She said, the system

after Christmas was chaotic,

unprofessional, unthinking,

and downright dangerous.

She concluded, I find many men,

many managers should have known

they were effectively

asking their workers

to rely on lethal or

potentially lethal equipment.

We are calling for a full

independent enquiry of the evidence.

Until a full investigation has been

carried out by an impartial party,

I think there are still unknowns.

But Newsnight has been told

that the criminal proceedings

in Qatar finished last November.

Which leaves the family

with little confidence anyone

will ever be held to account.

Katie Razall there.

In a statement Qatar's Supreme

Committee for Delivery and Legacy

said several systemic failures

and human errors had contributed

to the incident and that four

members of staff had been removed

and banned from working

on further projects.

A spokesman said the Supreme

Committee had been assured

that the contractors would keep

in touch with Mr Cox's

family and apologised

for failing to do so itself.

It said workers' welfare

was its main concern.

The building contractor Pfeifer,

in a joint statement

with Midmac Sixco, denied any

equipment was substandard and said

the firms had kept in close contact

at all times with the family

and British embassy.

There have always been arguments

about whether cannabis

should be decriminalised,

but there was a time

when the drug was legitimately

seen as at the light end

of the illicit drug spectrum.

However, things have

changed: a new study from

King's College London's Institute

of Psychiatry, Psychology &

Neuroscience being published

tomorrow, suggests that the weaker

forms of cannabis have almost been

driven out of the market,

which is now overwhelmingly

dominated by the more dangerous,

psychosis-inducing forms.

It's a new form of Gresham's law -

bad drugs drive out the good.

Weed, marijuana, skunk, grass.

There are many ways to talk

about cannabis but with each

word, the exact potency

of the product can change.

When it comes to smoking cannabis,

there are two crucial ingredients.

Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC,

is what gets people high.

But large doses of THC can also

induce temporary psychotic symptoms.

The other substance

is cannabidiol, or CBD.

It offsets some of the

negative effects of THC.

Now hash traditionally has

equal levels of the two.

Grass has low levels of both.

Whereas skunk has lots of THC

and virtually no CBD.

Tomorrow's the study

from King's College concludes that

it's skunk that forms an increasing

portion of the cannabis

available on our streets.

In 2005 only half the product

was high potency skunk.

By 2008 it was 85%.

And in 2016 it had hit 94%.

The findings are important

because having a market

which is dominated by high potency

cannabis like skunk means

that the cannabis users

are at significant risk

of developing psychosis.

Because it is known that when you do

use skunk your risk of developing

psychosis can be pushed up to five

times greater compared

to people that never use.

Also links between TH key and

addiction. Skunk is more addictive,

an added bonus for dealers. This all

bears on the legalisation debate.

There's a lesson from the

prohibition era.

When people want

something they generally get it.

Potent drugs are liked by dealers as

volumes sold can be smaller and

easier to disguise. That is why

whiskey was more popular in their

probation speakeasies in America

than beer. Cannabis once legalise it

could stop the slide towards more

potent versions?

Well, others say legalising

drugs that can result

in psychosis can never be right.

Making a highly addictive drug more

accessible will only

create more problems.

The one thing both sides

agree on is that cannabis

is getting stronger.

The stuff puffed by hippies in

the 60s had about 1% of THC in it.

Today's THC levels are now

over 14% on average,

as skunk's prevalence rises.

We should mention that three

of the five authors of the new study

do work for GW Pharmaceuticals,

a company developing

cannibinoid medicines.

I'm joined by Lord Monson -

he's a hereditary peer whose son

Rupert Green took his own life last

year after suffering

psychosis the family believe

was brought on by skunk.

In Toronto is Bill Blair.

He's a former chief of the city's

police and now an MP and drugs czar

to Canada's prime minister

Justin Trudeau - together

they are pushing through

the legalisation of cannabis.

And also with me is Marjorie Wallace

from the mental health charity Sane.

Good evening. Nick, take us through

Rupert's experience, how quickly did

he go from ordinary life to

psychosis?

Shore. He called me in

August, about a year and a half ago

come he said he hadn't been doing

very well in his studies. He

explained to me over the telephone

there was a reason for that, which

was that his flatmates had been

spying on him and said that had

unnerved him. He came to see me. We

discussed it. I said the likelihood

of his flatmates being so unpleasant

and bad minded towards him... It was

just the remotest possibility.

Possibly he was being a little bit

paranoid. Then he turned round and

said come if you say that to me

again I'm going to punch you.

Then

you realised something was wrong.

Yes. -- and said, if you say that.

He hadn't shown signs of anything

like this before?

No. But I haven't

seen him for six months. His mother

called me and said that he had gone

home and that he wasn't, doesn't

seem well, and he was diagnosed by

some doctors. They said that he had

drug induced psychosis. Quite what

that meant to us, we didn't know.

They said it will be fine, he just

needs to take his pills and he will

be all right. They didn't really

explain to us how dangerous the

psychosis could be. He went back to

university. This behaviour was... He

was quite aggressive over the

telephone. Then we had a chat and he

said that he intended to kill

himself. Then intervention followed.

And he was... He was taken to

hospital. Three weeks later he was

released and they said just fine, go

back home carry on taking the pills.

We expected him to slowly get

better. But it just wasn't the case.

And he had more and more, sort of

come he was supposed to be taking

the pills but we couldn't make him

because of human rights.

We know how

this tragically ended. Marjorie, you

see a lot of people with bad mental

health. Are you linking all of...

How often are you linking it to

skunk?

Sadly much too often. Your

experience, we see it we played that

day out. Dozens of families. And

through the charity hundreds. It's

the same link between young people,

usually young people, they are

starting out in life, they have

promise, their lives ahead, then

they start taking cannabis. And the

stronger forms of skunk have much

higher psychoactive THC content.

Then starts the downward spiral.

You

both agree on how dangerous this can

be. Let me bring in Bill Blair. You

were a police officer for many

years. An undercover narcotics

officer. Now leading the process by

which Canada will legalise cannabis.

What is this thinking? How much is

this strengthening of the street

cannabis motivating that?

What

motivates us, currently in Canada we

have the highest rates of cannabis

use among our young people of any

developed country in the world. The

cannabis they are using is entirely

sourced from criminal organisations.

We believe that it's necessary to

lift the prohibition through

legalisation in order to enable us a

comprehensive system of strict

regulation for its production and

distribution. So we can do a better

job of keeping it out of the hands

of our kids. The risk factor is we

are finding among our young people

that the earlier they begin to use

it more frequently they do. And the

higher potency of what they use has

much higher health risks and social

risks for our young people. We

believe we can be far more effective

in regulating this substance if we

lift the prohibition. I want to be

clear. Our approach is entirely

predicated on a public health model.

It is based on the best scientific

and health advice that we could

obtain from public health officials

in order to ensure we could do a

better job of it.

Did you think

about the idea of just legalising

the weaker forms to encourage people

not to be taking the illegal really

strong psychosis inducing stuff?

One

of the things we can do... Since

2013 we had a strictly regulated

production of medicated cannabis in

Canada. The processes are regularly

tested. There was a strict level of

accountability. We never potency,

the purity, and the provenance of

the cannabis available for

consumption among adults. We can

provide our adult consumers with far

more accurate information so they

can make healthier choices, safer

choices and socially responsible

choices.

Thanks very much for that.

Marjorie, do you think that the

powerful stuff which is around, so

prevalent, would strengthen the case

were legalising at least some

cannabis, the weaker form?

We know

that some people would take

cannabis, whatever strength. And

they are likely to develop

schizophrenia and later depression

and anxiety. We don't know who is

vulnerable. It might be ten to 20%

of people. We don't know. We haven't

done enough research. It's too early

to dilate the message is that it is

dangerous. It may be utopian in the

end to be able to provide the higher

forms like skunk -- divide the

higher forms like skunk from the

lower ones. At the moment it is too

dangerous to gamble with young

minds. Over the 25 years of the

helpline, I've seen so many

tragedies, so many people destroyed

by that taking of what seems

harmless as a relaxant.

Do you think

that the strengthening of the street

products changes the argument around

legalisation?

I do. This report that

has come out has demonstrated what I

have been saying from anecdotal

evidence. Over the last year. That

the greater the amount of THC the

greater the damage that can be

bought on vulnerable minds. And

remember, it's the very young

people, the people with developing

brains below the age of 22, they are

the most vulnerable. If you are over

25, for instance, and you have a

psychotic fit from your cannabis

habit you can get over it. Many

people under 22 cannot. They are

marked for life. And it is those

people I would seek to protect.

I

just want to go back to Bill Blair.

What is the evidence? Lots of places

have legalise the stuff. We have

Washington State, Colorado in the

US, have you looked at the evidence?

Are they getting better outcomes in

those places?

They are beginning to.

Simply managing regulation or

prohibition alone is insufficient.

We must make significant investments

in public education. Particularly

directed towards young people so

they know the health risks. One of

the things the evidence tells us is

that many young people are unaware

of the very significant health risks

of cannabis use. And the risk it

poses to the developing brain. We

maintain a prohibition for young

people under the age of majority. An

absolute prohibition in their legal

purchase or possession of this drug.

Marjorie, you would agree very much

with the education message?

Definitely with the education. But

if you dilate the message too much

then I think the parents, the

teachers, all of us trying to

educate cannot do so. -- dilutes the

message. That is why we cannot

decriminalise it immediately.

We

need to leave there. Thank you very

much.

That's all we have time for tonight.

We did promise we'd send

John Sweeney out into the snow -

I'm very sorry to say that items

earlier in the programme overran

and we don't have time

to bring you that report.

Maybe we'll convince him to brave

the elements again tomorrow.

Kirsty will be here then.

Goodnight.