POLITICAL PRESSURE (Jan 2013)

The Luke and Marcus Trust has written to Dewsbury’s Conservative MP, Simon Reevel, urging him to support our campaign for greater awareness through education in drug use. Our letter firmly states:

“We believe it is through good education that the problem may eventually be controlled. Making it legal, or decriminalised will not prevent use. Cigarettes are legal and people are still dying through the various diseases brought about by this drug. Cannabis skunk is far, far more dangerous, and when used with alcohol, as you will see, can be devastating.

The Luke and Marcus Trust supports parents bereaved by drug addiction and in almost every case the drug usage began with cannabis. We also support parents who are still coping with their young people still using. LEGALISING WILL NOT STOP THIS.

Now that your party is in Government will you please continue to support a campaign that cares passionately about young people and the issues surrounding drug use.”

Also attached was the following letter to a national newspaper from Mary Brett, Trustee of CanSS (Cannabis Skunk Sense) with whom the Trust enjoys strong links:

She writes: “Do all these public figures advocating the decriminalising of cannabis really know what they are doing? Use will inevitably rise – it always does when penalties are lessened. The Dutch have now banned the sale of any skunk with THC levels of 15% or more, equating it to a class ‘A’ drug. In the UK where 80% of users are smoking skunk the average THC level is 16.2%. THC persists for weeks in the brain cells.

More people will become mentally ill, see their IQs drop and fail to reach their full potential. They will adversely affect their immune, reproductive and cardiac systems, and invade their lungs with smoke more carcinogenic than that of tobacco. Emphysema and bronchitis are other possibilities. One in ten of those who ever even tries cannabis will become addicted.

A combination of alcohol and skunk (very common) makes a traffic accident 16 times more likely than either drug alone. Psychosis caused by increased levels of the chemical dopamine in the brain can lead to aggression, violence, even murder. Depression caused by the decrease of another chemical serotonin, can and does sometimes lead to suicide. The chances of triggering schizophrenia are at least doubled in users – families are torn apart. Scans are showing brain damage.

Anyone, standing up and promoting a critical U-Turn on policy which can and does lead to heartbreak, misery and ruined lives, owes it to themselves and the public to be fully conversant with all the scientific literature. Nothing less is a complete betrayal of all of us but especially our very vulnerable children whose brains have yet to fully develop.“

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

INQUEST INJUSTICE

When a former Archbishop of Canterbury’s grandson, Simon Day, died recently of a heroin overdose after coming out of rehab, a coroner recorded a verdict of death by misadventure. In such cases most do.

Yet when Matthew Jakeman died in similar circumstances several years earlier, the verdict at his inquest was “death due to dependency on drugs.”

That decision has caused Matthew’s mum Lesley Jakeman unnecessary anguish because she doesn’t feel it was a just one based on all the facts. Here she explains why:

“I feel an injustice is done to the memory of the deceased person and to the family if the full facts are not allowed to be aired in a public process, which is then publicised in the media for all to read or hear.

Bereaved relatives enter the coroner’s court emotionally vulnerable, trusting in the legal system to provide the right outcome -  a verdict which fits based on ALL the evidence, and an opportunity to speak  and give evidence about their loved one.

 My son’s inquest verdict “death due to dependency on drugs” was recorded without the coroner knowing Matthew had been off drugs for eight months immediately prior to his death after rehabilitation because I was not allowed the opportunity to speak at the hearing.

Had I been, I’d have made that clear along with the fact that Matthew had been with me earlier on the tragic Friday evening he died  – and was absolutely fine.

I’d have classed this information as relevant to the outcome. So too did a solicitor and barrister who felt I had a very good case to take to the High Court to have the verdict changed when I pursued the matter separately.

After already spending thousands of pounds on legal advice, I couldn’t take  that financial risk; nor should I have had to.  One night of lapsing after drinking alcohol with a drug user cost Matthew his life, but does not say “dependency on drugs”. It says, “death by misadventure”. The word “dependency” suggests unable to live without drugs; Matthew lived successfully without drugs for over eight months.

Therefore Matthew’s inquest verdict remains. Personally, I shall always feel it is a great injustice to his memory. 

Looking at the bigger picture, I am concerned about the apparent lack of standard procedures and verdicts in coroners’ inquests.

Were there standard requirements for all coroners and coroners’ officers to follow in inquests, then instances of some coroners conducting inquests to suit their own purpose would not occur.  And the bereaved would not have something else to grieve over.