Stick to the facts

Firstly I 100% support the decision to license cannabis production in Guernsey. I agree completely that it has the potential to grow (sorry) into an important niche sector in the island’s economy. I don’t even worry too much about the crop’s THC levels, within reason.

We certainly don’t want to allow an ultra-high THC product like ‘skunk’ to be grown here because the jury is still out on its long-term psychiatric impact and the current evidence looks pretty damning. However, if those taking cannabis in an attempt to relieve a serious condition happen to get a modest high in the process, who am I to condemn that as I sip my glass of red wine?

So far so good, but there is one aspect of this whole project which worries me. That is people – particularly the States – over-egging the idea that cannabis might be a cure for anything. Guernsey’s chief pharmacist has been at pains to point out that any possible medicinal benefits of cannabis are so far unproven in clinical trials and therefore no such claims should be made on its behalf. He’s quite right.

Of course it is nigh on impossible to apply that ruling to the general public. If Mrs Le Page wants to say that a cannabis product was the only thing which helped with her persistent pain or Mr Le Sauvage claims that it eased the symptoms of his chronic condition, then who is going to stop them expressing their personal views?

Rather, the ruling is an edict for those marketing cannabis products. Unless and until any medical benefits have been proven in proper trials, any such claims on its behalf are both misleading and potentially cruelly deceptive. I hope that fairly soon robust evidence will exist one way or another, but in the meantime those growing and processing legal cannabis must be scrupulously careful not to over-advocate for their products.

So must the States and States members. We must not be carried away by the possible economic benefits of cannabis cultivation to the point that we fall into the trap of exaggerating any medicinal benefits it might provide.

It was striking that just minutes after a CTV report where the chief pharmacist was warning about just this issue, Deputy Meerveld was doing a live interview on the subject and talking about the ‘possible medical benefits’ of cannabis products. Okay, the word ‘possible’ may be a satisfactory qualification, but it could be seen as the States already coming perilously close to crossing a line. Real care is needed here.

Moving on.

Sometimes political issues can become so divisive that it seems there is no middle ground. In the UK we have Brexit. In the US we have Trump’s border wall. In Guernsey we have paid parking and several other old chestnuts. I think we can now safely say that the idea of a runway extension has been added to the list of issues where the more strongly opinionated tend to claim that, ‘you are either with us or against us’.

I am not quite so black and white on the situation myself but I confess that I lean very heavily on P&R’s side of the debate. There may be a case for spending the many tens of millions of pounds required. There could even be a case for destroying countryside, demolishing houses and closing part of the Villiaze (for the broadcast media that’s pronounced V-Arz) and Russel Road, thus turning the Blicqs into a cul-de-sac.

If the economic/connectivity case was strong enough, all things should be considered, but it would need to be a bloney powerful case to convince me.

So far all we have really heard are pious hopes that ‘if you build it they will come’. Not only is that not sufficient to justify the project itself, but frankly it is nowhere near convincing enough to justify significant investment in further investigations. Admittedly, at the time of writing I have not yet been privileged enough to see the PwC report on the subject, but it would need to be a real game-changer to convince me that my instinctive response is wrong.

Not only would we need some firm pledges from major operators to justify an expensive and environmentally damaging runway extension but we would also need to consider carefully if their arrival was actually in Guernsey’s best, long-term, interests.

Sure, if a couple of low-cost operators started flying on Guernsey routes then travellers would definitely benefit in the short term. Frequency might nosedive due to bigger planes but fares should drop and we would all welcome that. The trouble is that such big beasts of the aviation world have zero loyalty to Guernsey – their first and only duty is to their shareholders.

So what? Well if Aurigny struggled to compete with the totally different, and inherently cheaper, business model of discount airlines, then its losses would mushroom, which would cost the Guernsey taxpayer dear. Of course the nuclear solution to that problem would be to close Aurigny down, but then if at some later stage those low-cost operators decided Guernsey was no longer a key part of their network and went elsewhere, we would be in very dire straits. A worst-case scenario? Maybe, but a very plausible one.

I really think Guernsey needs to be very careful what it wishes for or this island could find itself in the very soup which its expensive insurance policy [Aurigny] was supposed to keep it out of.

Finally today I can’t help noticing that in recent weeks no fewer than three of my fellow columnists have chosen for their subject matter a rebuttal of my own ramblings. Am I offended? Far from it. I am delighted to be setting the agenda for public debate.

Will I retaliate? Not at all. My only promise is that I will continue to be provocative and if I end up ‘pushing the buttons’ of my fellow scribblers by offering views which dare to differ from those of groups representing big business, then so be it. Guernsey is a community, not just a PLC.