Mental health toll of skunk cannabis: Number of users admitted to hospital after smoking drug soars 50%

Now there isn’t much point in going through the argument as to why this story is a serious misrepresentation of the truth, it is but as it’s already the subject of a PCC complaint the issues have been well covered.

Let us, for a moment, take this report at face value and assume it is totally 100% accurate. Just for the sake of argument.

The claim is explained by The Mail which reported:

A 2008 Home Office survey found average concentrations of THC – the active ingredient in cannabis – of 16 per cent. But in some samples the level was much higher – up to 45 per cent.

Skunk also contains less of an anti-psychotic ingredient which moderates the harmful effects of THC. Repeated studies have shown the harmful impact on mental health of cannabis use among young people.

Now, if this is true – and it might be – it does raise an awkward question the Mail doesn’t address which is why the market for skunk came into being. One of the claims that paper is often making is that “skunk” is so much more powerful than the cannabis of old, the mild cannabis the hippies of the 1970′s enjoyed with so little harm.

Cannabis, it is claimed, has changed in recent years and mutated into this new, dangerously damaging product. This has especially happened in the past 10 – 20 years which is odd, because it didn’t happen at any time in the previous several thousand of years of humans using and growing cannabis. If The Mail is right then it must mean that something has happened recently to change the economics of production and supply. What has happened to cannabis since the 1970′s that could possibly have done that?

Now we don’t have to look far for an answer to what could have changed the market for cannabis, the answer is of course the global war on drugs. The nice, safe, low potency high CBD cannabis we all enjoyed in the 1970′s (according to The Mail) was gown outdoors in large fields, such as high up in the Rift mountains of North Africa, a naturally grown crop tended by people with a tradition of cannabis growing. It was then imported to this country in ever increasing amounts up to the late 1980′s/ early 90′s when the prohibition effort which had started in the early 70′s really began to bite. Crop eradication in the producer countries, stronger customs enforcement and all the rest saw a huge drop off of in the quality of imported hash. In the early 90′s the dreadful “soap bar” contamination became a serious problem. A huge demand for a better quality product was created by the enforcement efforts and that market was satisfied by herbal cannabis grown in this country – the so called “skunk”. The fact that the British government was unaware of this market shift for about 10 years – until 2008 – should be a cause of concern, but doesn’t seem to be. So much for cannabis being a “controlled drug”!

So yes, there was a market shift from imported cannabis to home produced varieties and it was caused absolutely and without doubt by the prohibition policy, what they laughingly call an “unintended consequence”. So if what The Daily Mail says is true and cannabis has become more dangerous than it used to be, it was people like the editor of that paper – who support prohibition – who caused the very problem they now warn us of.

But that’s not all, if what The Daily Mail is warning us about is true, it blows a hole in the most basic of all claims made by prohibition supporters – that reducing the use of a drug lowers the harms caused by that use. As the government is so keen to trumpet, their policy is “working” and cannabis use is falling quite steeply. Now again, let’s not argue with that claim, it may or may not be true. But if we assume it is true than what we have now according to the government and prohibition supporters is falling use couple with increased harm. This frankly holes the prohibition policy below the watermark; falling use coupled with increased harm is the one thing that shouldn’t happen. Now of course we can point out that this lesson should have been learned with the alcohol prohibition of 1920′s America, but again, it doesn’t seem to have been.

The really pathetic thing is these people don’t realise the argument they are making against the cause they support. We as law reform campaigners need to exploit this opportunity for all its worth: Prohibition is harm maximisation.

Reefer madness: A Logical Brick Wall. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

After an operation I was diagnosed with stage 4 hodgkins cancer of the lymph nodes (link). Eight tumours had been removed from my neck! Unfortunately because I had been misdiagnosed the cancer had spread to my stomach, my diaphragm and my bowl.

Nearly a year and a half of chemotherapy followed , unfortunately the prolonged chemo caused numerous problems  including Raynauds ( severe nerve damage) bowl disorder and suppressed immune system.

While in hospital I contacted MRSA which destroyed my left hip and for years after I struggled through life taking over 330 tablets every month. My body weight went from 13 and a half stone to 8 stone. It was at this time whilst searching the Internet I discovered medical cannabis and after reading many articles I decided to see if this could be the answer after years of medication; I was getting nowhere!

CLEAR has received an update from Mark, in it he described the effect cannabis had on his life

My chemotherapy caused severe lifelong medical conditions such as Raynauds and Bone infarction to name but a few and I was left taking all those tablets every months, when I started using cannabis my tablet consumption went to 0 my life started to get back on track.

As diagnosis I was regional director of National Tyre and Autocare a large multinational company, after my career came to an end with the diagnosis my life fell apart, however after self medicating the old me has returned. I am 45 years old and have never been in any form of trouble in my life, I own my own property and had started to develop a small company

As he told us in the first post, he was raided and he was charged with production of cannabis. Most people, I think, will be shocked by what happened as a result of this police raid, this latest update arrived by post from HMP Risley.

I arrived at court on May 9^th armed with an in depth legal medical review that stated my illness. if I was to be sentenced would cause many problems and in fact would be very dangerous to my health, however on this date I was to be sentenced to five years imprisonment!

To say I am completely shocked is an understatement. I really do not understand this situation I have appealed this immediately. I am sure you agree this needs to stop all I keep getting told in drug courses in prison is there is no medical benefit of cannabis and it causes severe mental problems, obviously the education within the prison service is laughable and totally incorrect, I have managed to keep the HMP prison cannabis book pack hopefully one day I will get it to you believe me the propaganda within this booklet will shock you as it is based on zero evidence and totally false statements.

So it would seem that the state thinks there can be some benefit to society in locking someone with what is probably terminal cancer up for the terrible crime of growing some plant which he discovered gave him relief from his condition. This is beyond madness. Worse – if indeed it could be worse – he has to endure  a prison drug awareness “education” telling him there is no medicinal benefit from cannabis use, when he knows full well from his own direct experience that there is.

Mark is appealing his sentence and we’ll keep you updated if we hear any more news.

It is important once again to give this bit of advice for anyone growing their own plants – which is to be aware of the sentencing guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS Website):

Do not grow more than 9 plants and be totally law abiding in every other aspect of your life. Medical need can be used as a mitigating circumstance but as we see here it is not a guarantee.

Edit to add – Mark was convicted of growing 32 plants, he maintains there were only 28.

Mark, Cancer Sufferer – Update: Busted, Jailed. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

So, at the risk of starting world war three let’s have a go at answering this question once and for all, but it’s not as easy as you might think and the first reason for that is we are not not consistent in these things.

First of all of course cannabis is the name of a plant and the plant produces active chemicals – the things we call we call “drugs”. Now tobacco isn’t generally thought of as a drug, yet as we know it contains the drug nicotine, but khat is generally perceived as a drug (in this country at least) because it contains the stimulant cathinone. Now it gets muddy because to the people who traditionally use Khat it’s just a plant they chew to help them get through the day, the “drug” connotation is something we (our governments) in the west have put on it in recent years and of course the same is true for cannabis. So why hasn’t that happened with tobacco? Probably the opposite is true, tobacco was familiar to the people who wrote the drug laws. What we’re seeing here is the use of a word which has its roots in cultural norms imposed by laws, which is not a very good start.

So the “no” camp have round one on balance; cannabis, like khat or tobacco is a plant and had it not been for the drugs laws it would possibly never have had the “drug” label attached to it. But that isn’t quite true.

Cannabis is popular with the people who use it for one simple reason – it gets them stoned when they smoke or eat it. So the very people who are often the most vocal in refusing to accept the drug label for cannabis are the most appreciative of its drug effects. Tobacco of course doesn’t get you stoned and indeed doesn’t seem to “do” anything, although as we now know it releases a drug – nicotine – which does produce significant effects on the brain.

So now might be a good time to find a definition of what makes a drug: The Oxford Dictionary defines a drug as:

A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:

* a substance taken for its narcotic or stimulant effects, often illegally:

Which is a useless definition because that obviously includes food. The free dictionary defines a drug as

1 a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

Free dictionary is American, but even so defining a substance as a drug because the US government says it is will not win a debate such as we’re having. A chemical that affects the CNS is also very vague and includes many things which we don’t think of as drugs, some of which lead to much more than just changes.

The UN Office Of Drug Control the UNODC doesn’t help much either, while accepting the medicial definition of drug as being a substance with the potential to prevent or cure disease or enhance physical or mental welfare it also tries a definition close to the Oxford version above

any chemical agent that alters the biochemical or physiological processes of tissues or organisms.

which again of course includes foods. Worse it also creates its own definition:

In the context of international drug control, “drug” means any of the substances listed in Schedule I and II of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, whether natural or synthetic.

Wikipedia has a better go at a definition

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.

“performance enhancing or other effects” is rather vague, but it’s no worse than the other definitions and does try to exclude food, but presumably would include vitamins…

This isn’t as easy as it should be, considering we have such draconian laws aimed at drugs and such entrenched ideas about them.

About.com chemistry offers perhaps the best definition, if a little strangled by bad proof reading:

A drug is a chemical that has medicinal, performance-enhancing or intoxicating effects when introduced into the body of a human or other animal. Substances which are foods are not considered to be drugs, although active ingredients from foods make be purified (sic) for use as drugs. Also, some chemicals used as drugs are identical to substances made in the body (e.g., insulin, testosterone). The chemical is considered a drug only if it is introduced into the body from the outside, such as by ingestion, injection or topical application.

So that seems the best definition to go by, but as we’ve seen it’s not universally understood and it’s distorted by the definition imposed by the UN and governments which has arbitrarily created it’s own list based on, well, no more than opinion. So:

Under the law, cannabis is a drug, but only because politicians have decided it is.

Law reform campaigners and many cannabis evangelists point out that it is an effective medicine, so on that definition it is also a drug. Here it’s important to mention a big complication which we’ll come back to, which is that cannabis, rather than the individual components within it – is a medicine. Refined extracts also have great medical potential, but so does the whole plant.

But what about the chemical introduced to the body which affects the CNS definition?

About now someone will suggest a solution: Cannabis isn’t a drug, it’s a plant that contains a drug (THC) and this makes sense. Tobacco isn’t a drug but nicotine is, it sounds like the obvious answer. Sadly though, that’s not good enough either.

The cannabis experience isn’t the product of the one THC drug. If you were to take a dose of pure THC the effect is, by all accounts, not nice at all.

BBC 3 shows the effects of pure THC compared with THC and CBD

Cannabis is pretty unique in that it produces two active chemicals, THC and CBD which are almost direct opposites in many respects. THC is the psychoactive chemical long associated with cannabis, CBD is far more subtle and only recently understood to have an important effect on the user. CBD can be thought of as a “balance” to THC and is a very important constituent. This is the rub: The cannabis drug effect is the combined effect of all the active chemicals the plant produces – THC and CBD are the most important but there are a number of other, minor compounds at work to produce the overall cannabis experience. In short, the “cannabis drug” is not THC, it’s everything all at once. This is why different strains of cannabis have such different effects on the user, indeed it may well be true that some strains are harmful for people at risk of mental illness, while others may be beneficial to the very same people.

So where does this leave us? Cannabis is a drug because:

1: The government says so for no good reason
2: Because it’s a medicine in its whole plant form
3: Because the effect of taking everything the plant produces into the body is what gives the overall cannabis experience.

Cannabis is not a drug because

1: The government says so for no good reason
1: Because it’s a medicine in its whole plant form
2: Because the effect of taking everything the plant produces into the body is what gives the overall cannabis experience.

That’s clear then.

So the conclusion to all this is really that cannabis is simply not like other drugs, it is a thing in its own right. It is a drug in the general use of the word and is understood as such even by many of those who refuse to call it a drug but enjoy getting stoned, but it isn’t a (singular) drug. The cannabis experience is something only this particular plant can give, a balance of chemicals specific to individual strains of the plant. The “cannabis drug effect” is many and varied, although specific to particular strains and therefore predictable.

It is correct then to talk of cannabis as a drug because it is taken for its drug effect but that drug effect is the effect of cannabis not the individual drugs it contains. So on balance cannabis is a drug but it’s also important to understand why it is a totally unique substance and for cannabis law reform campaigners understanding this issue is perhaps one of the most important things we need to do.

Cannabis as we all know, is quite unique.

Is Cannabis A Drug (Reprise) - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

________________________

Hi I’m Malky, im 33 years old, from fife. I have type 1 diabetes and neuropathy diagnosed  in 1992.

I have been using cannabis for pain relief for five years and most of this time I have bought it from dealers. This practice puts you at serious risk from adulterated cannabis such a glass beads added to increase the weight (“grit weed”) and also toxins left over from improper growing conditions. In addition to this the money from this cannabis usually ends up funding organised crime.

Anyone who has suffered neuropahic pain or watched the suffering of a loved one will understand how much this affects your daily life. For those who don’t know how bad it can be I would point out how desperate anyone who has suffered severe dental pain can be for relief. We’ve all heard of people taking too many painkillers or even pulling the offending tooth out! Imagine this level of pain everyday. The pain means you cannot sleep properly and this has an affect on physical and mental health which ends up costing the NHS more money to treat these symptoms.

The current NHS approved neuropathic  pain relief are pills such as Gabapentin and Cymbalta these pills are toxic, they cause kidney and liver damage and a whole host of unpleasant side affects:

Side effects of Gabapentin:  drowsiness, tiredness or weakness, dizziness, headache,  uncontrollable shaking of a part of your body,  double or blurred vision,  unsteadiness,  anxiety,  memory problems,  strange or unusual thoughts, unwanted eye movements,  nausea,  vomiting,  heartburn, diarrhea, dry mouth, constipation, increased appetite,  weight gain,  swelling of the hands, feet, ankles, or lower legs,  back or joint pain,  fever,  runny nose, sneezing, cough, sore throat, or flu-like symptoms,  ear pain,  red, itchy eyes (sometimes with swelling or discharge), Some side effects may be serious. If you experience any of the following symptoms, call your doctor immediately:  rash,  itching,  swelling of the face, throat, tongue, lips, or eyes,  hoarseness,  difficulty swallowing or breathing,  seizures

Side effects of Cymbalta: Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction to Cymbalta: skin rash or hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. Report any new or worsening symptoms to your doctor, such as: mood or behavior changes, anxiety, panic attacks, trouble sleeping, or if you feel impulsive, irritable, agitated, hostile, aggressive, restless, hyperactive (mentally or physically), more depressed, or have thoughts about suicide or hurting yourself. Call your doctor at once if you have:  nausea, upper stomach pain, itching, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);   feeling like you might pass out;   agitation, hallucinations, fever, fast heart rate, overactive reflexes, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of coordination;  very stiff (rigid) muscles, high fever, sweating, confusion, tremors;  easy bruising, unusual bleeding;  painful or difficult urination;     headache, trouble concentrating, memory problems, weakness, feeling unsteady, seizure, shallow breathing or breathing that stops; or severe skin reaction — fever, sore throat, swelling in your face or tongue, burning in your eyes, skin pain, followed by a red or purple skin rash that spreads (especially in the face or upper body) and causes blistering and peeling. Other common Cymbalta side effects may include: dry mouth;  drowsiness;  tired feeling; mild nausea or loss of appetite; or  constipation.  This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur.

Being a diabetic I have impaired kidney function already so these pills will accelerate the damage eventually leading to dialysis, so understandably I would rather not use them.

In an attempt to ensure good quality medication I turned to growing  my own cannabis. I didn’t know anything about growing so I sought advice on the internet where I was told that if my electricity usage went up my provider would inform the police so it would be a prudent security measure to bypass my meter to the grow room. I have an electrical qualification city and guilds 2377 which I passed in 2010 and foolishly I took this advice. Of course I was aware of the illegality of growing in the UK so I had a concealed grow room with access to this hidden inside a set of drawers fixed to a fake wall with a self built hydroponic system inside. The room was approx 1.2m by 3m.

However the police attended my house on an unrelated matter and found my four mature plants. I had  a “Screen of Green” (SCROG) system my screen was 80cms by 1.8m this was lit by 2x 600w HPS lights. I had extraction built into the room but no odor control and that’s what got me caught, the police smelled it. They then discovered the electricity was being bypassed and this understandably ended with me being charged with abstraction of electricity as well as (not so understandably) cultivation of cannabis. They haven’t charged me with intent to supply as of yet and I don’t expect them to. I have a previously clean record bar some driving offences.

However if I could have obtained cannabis legally via prescription I would never have considered taking such dangerous actions and of course legal cannabis would mean I was paying tax not stealing electricity or contributing to black markets and risking serious harm from adulterated cannabis. The law on cannabis in the uk causes harm to the economy from electricity theft, harm to users from adulterated cannabis, harm to our communities from organized crime, harm to those who need safer alternatives to toxic pills, harm to our youth from unregulated sales when a properly managed system to give access to those who need it would create jobs and tax revenue boosting our economy and taking profits away from organized crime. Prohibition simply does not work.

________________________

Anyone growing cannabis should be aware of the sentencing guidelines  issued in February 2012. To stay at the lower end of the penalty structure is is important to be as law abiding as possible in all other respects besides the growing of the plants. As Malky has discovered abstracting electricity, apart from being an offence (theft) in its own right, is also an additional compounding factor taken into account in sentencing for cultivation. Anyone who advises people to abstract electricity for grow rooms is giving very bad advice indeed. It wouldn’t have prevented the electricity supplier seeing the increase in load caused by the lights in any case.

Note also that as far as the sentencing guidelines are  concerned, using a generator is also a compounding factor.

Malky’s story - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Stephen tells his story:

____________

September the 5^th 1997 is all but a fuzzy memory now, its Friday night and I’m out having a few drinks with my girlfriend and some mates down at the local working mans club. I remember leaving early as I had to work the next day and my mate had suggested he knew a short cut to my house on a path through some woods that were close to my home. The next thing I remember is yelling to my mate to slow down because I couldn’t see the path or him it was pitch black in those woods.

I have no memory of what happened next, all I could see was a black sky,and I could not move . I am not sure how long I had lain there, I fell asleep.

It was the voices and bright lights that I remember next and a pain in my back, I was in the back of an ambulance and was drifting in and out of sleep, it was the vibrations of the rotor blades that made me wake up again and I found myself in a helicopter landing at a spinal injury hospital.

I had broken the 5 and 6th vertebrae of my neck and was paralysed from my chest down. I was devastated, I spent 3 months in traction and then another 8 months in rehab. I left the hospital with a degree in paralysis but as a junkie on prescription meds, I had handfuls of pills that I would have to take 4 times a day to control the symptoms of paralysis.

Paralysis is such a strange condition, it does not mean I can’t move or feel anything. It means many things, but to me it’s uncontrolled muscle spasms, muscle cramps and muscle rigidity. Have you ever had a real bad sunburn or pins and needles in your feet? That’s how my skin feels all the time.

You don’t feel hunger but you know you have to eat, my body does not sweat below my neck so  can no longer regulate my temperature.

Having no balance makes the simple act of pushing yourself in a wheelchair a real challenge and going to the toilet is another thing that I won’t go into here.

The worst symptom is a condition called autonomic dysreflexia which only occurs with people who have broken their necks. It causes a sudden rise in blood pressure which will cause CVA (stroke) or death as a result.

After two years of taking prescription pills I was rushed into hospital, the toxic pills I was taking had eaten a hole in my stomach, I came out of hospital after three weeks. Then two days later I was rushed back to hospital as the percocet pain killers I was given in the hospital had ran out an my own doctor refused to give me any medication for the pain as she told me they were narcotics and she was not going to prescribe them to me.

I had had enough of pills and quack doctors,I needed a new plan.

I have used cannabis since I was a young adult, it had always been a social event where a bunch of us would get together, pool our money and go to see our local dealer for a bag of buds. We would laugh and giggle and their was never any trouble caused, but at the time of my accident good weed was hard to find and expensive, all that was around was bad hash called soap.

I had a spare room in my home so I brought some seeds and hydroponic equipment. Three months later I was cutting down my own plants. Six months later I had stopped taking all of the prescription medication that was prescribed to me and I felt good, cannabis was helping with every symptom that I had and I felt alive again.

I carried on growing, I started breeding my own strains -  I wanted to grow the best medicine I could and have been doing so for 14 years.

Well march last year I had a knock on the door, “its the police and were here to search your premises for cannabis”. o-oh

They found 300 plants, the police could see that although I had a lot of plants I was not dealing and that they were for my own use, they said they would have to take all the plants but to my surprise they did not take it all and they left all my hydroponic equipment and enough plants growing that I could continue growing the next day.

I received a caution for my troubles and I naively thought I would not see them again, doh.

Last Thursday they came back.

This time they found about 200 plants and they decided to take them all and my hydroponic equipment, but they were nice enough to leave me with about a months supply of dried buds.

I have not been charged yet but I will be, I may lose what’s left of my freedom if I try to fight this in court as many have tried to get the law changed in regards to medicinal cannabis and nothing happens.

After everything that has happened I remain happy and positive and I believe its my turn to take this fight on if not for myself for everyone else who has been persecuted by an out of date law that was written by old farts who have no clue on how to live in the real world and have a happy, healthy society. Imagine that.

I will update this story as it develops.

Stephen

___________________

This story has been shared with UKCIA

Prohibition of Medicinal Cannabis use: An example of Torture in the Name of the Law. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

A study published in American Journal of Epidemiology (Abstract here) called “Obesity and Cannabis Use: Results From two Representative National Surveys” looked at the weight of cannabis users. Simply, if the claim about the munchies leading to obesity were true, then the researchers should have found that cannabis users were fatter on average than none users. The “wrong result” of course, showed the exact opposite

The authors conclude that the prevalence of obesity is lower in cannabis users than in nonusers.

Whoops, there goes another prohibition claim and it’s no small difference either. So what’s going on? It is true that some cannabis consumers do hit the munchies and some may intake a good 600 cals more than average. But as Time (Health and Family) reported

… showing that rates of obesity are lower by roughly a third in people who smoke pot at least three times a week, compared with those who don’t use marijuana at all.

As Time reports

Researchers analyzed data from two large national surveys of the American population, which together included some 52,000 participants. In the first survey, they found that 22% of those who did not smoke marijuana were obese, compared with just 14% of the regular marijuana smokers. The second survey found that 25% of nonsmokers were obese, compared with 17% of regular cannabis users.

They also found that this result held true after adjusting for other variables which might have an effect on body weight such as general health age, tobacco use and gender. The Time article tries to pour cold water on the idea that cannabis might actually be a slimming aid, pointing out that consumers are unlikely to be able to resist eating, but that misses the point as the article has already established they take in more calories than average, yet don’t seem to be gaining the weight.

So could it be that cannabis actually allows people to eat chocolate with a clear conscience? It does seem that way. As Time says

Whatever the case, marijuana research never lacks for surprises!

Even more important than the effect of cannabis on waist sizes was reported in the Independent today

Cannabis linked to prevention of diabetes

Regular users of the drug found to have lower levels of insulin after fasting, research shows

This is dynamite news and yet again runs counter to the UK government’s insistence that herbal cannabis has no medicinal value. The Independent reports

Smoking cannabis may prevent the development of diabetes, one of the most rapidly rising chronic disorders in the world.

This is amazing news if it’s proven to be correct

Researchers have found that regular users of the drug had lower levels of the hormone insulin after fasting – a signal that they are protected against diabetes. They also had reduced insulin resistance….

The study involved almost 5,000 patients who answered a questionnaire about their drug use and were part of the National Health and Nutrition Survey between 2005 and 2010. The results showed almost 2,000 had used cannabis at some point in their lives and more than one in 10 (579) were current users. Only those who had used cannabis within the past month showed evidence of protection against diabetes, suggesting that the effects wear off in time. Current users of the drug had 16 per cent lower fasting insulin than those who had never used the drug.

Diabetes.co.uk reports

“Previous epidemiologic studies have found lower prevalence rates of obesity and diabetes mellitus in marijuana users compared to people who have never used marijuana, suggesting a relationship between cannabinoids and peripheral metabolic processes, but ours is the first to investigate the relationship between marijuana use and fasting insulin, glucose, and insulin resistance,” said lead investigator Mittleman.

The reports adds

Prof Joseph S. Alpert, of the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and editor in chief of the American Journal of Medicine, which published the findings, said: “These are remarkable observations that are supported by basic science experiments that came to similar conclusions.”We desperately need a great deal more basic and clinical research into the short and long term effects of marijuana in a variety of clinical settings such as cancer, diabetes and frailty of the elderly.”

That, and very much more. What we also need is a government willing to take the blinkers from its eyes and to accept the fact that there is clearly a great deal of medicinal benefit to be had from herbal cannabis. The insistence that cannabis is a drug with no medicinal value is not only wrong, it’s cruel. Many, many ill people’s lives will be improved when this corrupt prohibition law finally ends.

Cannabis, The Munchies, Obesity And Diabetes - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The fact that there are two major active components has meant the  nature of cannabis has been seriously misrepresented and therefore misunderstood for years, originally through ignorance but more recently deliberately.

For just about all other drugs of intoxication (or enlightenment depending on how you look at these things) there’s really only one consideration: How much of the drug you take, i.e. the dose. Strong drugs simply give you more of the drug per gram, pint or whatever unit the drug is measured in. In other words, drugs generally consist of an active compound contained within a larger volume of something else which can be considered neutral.

Hence we have a very simple variable to talk about which we call “strength”. Even if they don’t really understand how it works, most people are familiar enough with this concept as it applies to booze and understand that a beer with a 3% ABV is a lot weaker than a beer with 10% ABV, even if they don’t know what a “% ABV” actually means*. Most people know something else about “strength” as well, which is that you don’t need as much of the strong stuff as you do the weak, but have enough of the weak stuff and you end up in the same place as you do with the strong stuff more or less.

Hence we have a simple variable called “strength” which is widely understood and is nice and easy. This concept extends way beyond booze to include all the naughty drugs – cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, you name it the same logic applies, “stronger” means “higher dose” per gulp/snort/fix.

But when we come to consider cannabis we find things are measured differently and we find a new word is used: “potency”. Whenever governments or their agencies start using a subtly different term for something you think you understand it’s always a good idea to ask why?

The Home Office study into cannabis potency of 2008 (PDF read it here) had a go at defining this “potency” concept. The definition the study gave was:

The potency of cannabis is defined as the concentration (%) of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Sadly it didn’t specify what the concentration is a percentage of, giving the misleading impression perhaps that a sample of herbal cannabis consists of upwards of 40% THC. Now, this is clearly not the case as a sample of herbal plant material plainly doesn’t consist of nearly half THC, either by volume or by weight. No matter how strong the cannabis is, most of it is clearly plant material. Indeed, it’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t even consist of 5% THC by weight or volume because that would still be a huge amount of what is a very powerful psychoactive drug. So it’s clear that “potency” isn’t anything like the same simple concept as strength.

Actually the % THC figure is the proportion of THC in the oils produced by the plant. The plant oozes oils – the pure resin – from glands known as “trichomes”. It’s these tiny beads of oil which contain the active chemicals that make cannabis what it is and the “potency” figure often quoted is the proportion of this oil which is THC.

Two important points flow from this:

1: Potency is not strength. Clearly you could have a sample of cannabis with very few globs of resin on, which would make it quite weak, although the resin it did contain could be high in THC, making it a high potency. Likewise a concentrated form of low potency cannabis could deliver a large dose of THC, making it quite strong. One “concentrated form of cannabis” is known as hashish, being the resin of the plant with far less vegetable matter included.

2: The THC is expressed as a percentage (by weight actually) of the oils, there are clearly other substances in the oil, quite a few of which are psycho active but it turns out that one in particular, known as CBD or cannabidiol, is very important when it comes to understanding just what cannabis does to the user.

Spurred on by the Reefer Madness V2 scare of the last decade there were two “Cannabis and Mental Health” conferences held in London in 2004 and 2007 and one of the more interesting presentations (for me) came from Dr Zerrin Atakan who was involved in a study which reported in 2009 called “Distinct Effects of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol” on Neural Activation During Emotional Processing”. The study undertaken by Zerrin Atakan and Professor Philip McGuire consisted of giving subjects a dose of THC or CBD or a placebo and examining the effects on the subject by both a series of standard tests and also by magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (here).  Professor Philip McGuire stated

“These studies show that THC and CBD have distinct effects on brain function in humans, and these may underlie their correspondingly different effects on cognition and psychiatric symptoms. Determining how the constituents of cannabis act on the brain is fundamental to understanding the role of cannabis use in the aetiology of psychiatric disorders.”

In English this means understanding the combined roles of THC and CBD is important for understanding how cannabis works and what its effect on the brain will be; it isn’t just about THC,

The really interesting thing about this is that CBD turns out to be playing a significant role, yet until recently it had never been routinely measured. It’s almost the polar opposite of THC in its effects in some respects; if THC is linked to psychotic type episodes, CBD has anti psychotic properties. If THC is thought to cause panic attacks, CBD calms those impulses. Put in terms the Daily Mail could understand, if THC is “bad”, CBD is “good”.

The practical upshot of all this is that talking of cannabis simply in terms of “potency” masquerading as “strength” is meaningless, we need to be far more sophisticated in the way to describe it. The measure of “potency” as used by the government is simply not up to the job, which is no surprise really as it came from the law enforcement requirements of prohibition, not from concerns of public health or any real understanding of the plant. To mean anything, “potency” has to state the concentration of both THC and CBD.

Of course, all this isn’t news to experienced cannabis users. It’s long been known that the old skool hash from Morocco for example was laid  back and dreamy whilst some of the modern strains are somewhat “edgy” or “trippy”. But we can thank Zerrin and her team for providing the explanation in terms of the combined effects of THC and CBD on the brain and providing the science, this difference is real.

Now the  the Home Office “potency” study of 2008 was close to being “cod science” because of the way it collected its data and on its lax definitions of potency but it did show one interesting result which is relevant to this discussion; the THC/CBD balance of “traditional” hashish we used to get in the UK is very different to that of some herbal cannabis on sale today. The traditional hash contained something like 5% THC and 3.5% CBD on average. Now what this means is the oils in the sample contained a total of 8.5% active ingredients and 91.5% uninteresting goo – ie  mostly none psycho-active resin plus a range of minor active chemicals. The valuable bit of information here isn’t the THC concentration but the ratio of the two chemicals of 7 parts CBD to 10 parts THC. That isn’t too far off 50-50. It’s interesting to note that the composition of Sativex – the cannabis medicine – is 51/49 THC/CBD, a composition arrived at because it had the best effectivity with the minimum unpleasant side effects.

The thing to note is that before the present prohibition policy choked off imported hash from north Africa, most of the cannabis supplied to the UK was of this type with a more or less equal ratio of THC:CBD. The policy so enthusiastically followed by our government has seen this replaced by strains which are much lower in CBD. So there we have an “unintended consequence” of prohibition, the suppression of a well balanced product and its substitution with something very different, but different in a way no-one thought important to monitor, much less control.

This is at the root of the claims that cannabis potency has increased in recent years, which is a claim often made by prohibition campaigners and used to justify continued prohibition. Far from being an argument in favour of continued prohibition however, this change was caused by it. If as the government claims it is true that high potency (ie low CBD) cannabis is dangerous for some people it is a danger caused directly by the prohibition policy.

With most – if not all – other drugs the control of the strength is important. With cannabis the composition in terms of THC and CBD is equally if not more important. This variable is determined primarily by the strain grown, in other words by the seeds sold, but also to an extent by the maturity of the plant when harvested. If the government is really concerned about the potential for harm caused by the type of cannabis on sale in the country as they claim to be, controlling and properly regulating the seed suppliers and the growing industry is the way to go. Here we have some solid science to support that suggestion.

Thus far, the law has only served to make things potentially more dangerous whilst relying on a useless measurement which is widely misunderstood, but that’s how prohibition works.

——————-

* % ABV means “the percentage of Alcohol by volume”, so 100 ml of 10%ABV plonk will contain 10ml of pure alcohol.

Potency: A Widely Misunderstood Concept. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

But…

Ten Years After – Ganja Day 2003, Brixton

Now I should make it clear that I didn’t go to 420 day, partly because it was so far away from where I live but mostly because, as someone who no longer uses cannabis, events like this aren’t really my thing any more. But going by the many photos, videos and reports I’ve seen, two things did bother me  and in my opinion they are important issues.

One was the number of rather young people there, quite a few were under 18 by the look of things. As the event was oganised on Facebook that’s not really a surprise, but it really doesn’t do the campaign any great favours and gives the prohibition lobby a highly emotive weapon to use against us. Any law reform we might see for cannabis will surely involve age limits and change will come about at least in part because of the perceived need to protect kids from the cannabis trade. Organising an event like this which can be presented (unfairly maybe) as promoting cannabis use amongst kids is playing right into the Daily Mail’s hands. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention of the organisers, of course it wasn’t, but it did look that way.

The other thing I found really unfortunate was that – again from looking at the pictures and videos – pretty much everyone was smoking tobacco filled joints. Now for heaven’s sake we really shouldn’t still be having this debate. Any organisation putting on a 420 type event really should be encouraging people not to mix their cannabis with such a nasty carcinogenic, addictive drug as tobacco, a drug which is regarded as a pariah by most adults now. Let me make it plain what I’m saying here; I don’t mean that anyone skinning up a tobacco filled fattie should be frog marched off the demo, but that a part of the pre-demo publicity should have promoted the idea of tobacco free smoking, something along the lines of the TOKEpure campaign, perhaps with banners and leaflets on the day. I think some CLEAR TOKEpure leaflets were given out, but the London Cannabis Club didn’t do anything I know of.

What 420 day did, unfortunately, was to show lots of young people smoking tobacco. I’m afraid that is wrong on so many levels and again, it does the campaign no favours. Organisers of this sort of event do need to be aware of these things and to treat  them as real issues when planning the demo because they are issues the public is concerned about. Anyway, tobacco is by far the biggest health risk cannabis users face: tobacco kills, pure cannabis doesn’t,  it’s as simple and real as that.

As I say, I don’t think any of this was intentional and I hope people will learn from the experience for next year. But as regards the age issue, yes, this campaign does need to be a aimed at adults. As far as the 420 day goes this is criticism well meant which should be taken seriously. The decision CLEAR has taken to restrict its Facebook page and website to over 18s is the right one. The reason we are doing this is simple, we don’t want to involve children in our campaign to change the cannabis laws. Probably the most important component of cannabis law reform is to enable age restrictions on sale of cannabis. It is no part of our campaign to appeal to or to involve children.

420 Day, Kids, Cannabis, Tobacco And The Future Of The Campaign - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

___________________________

I’m 23 years old and I have Diabetes, Usher syndrome (Retinits Pigmentosa),which means vision and hearing impairment and suffer many bouts of depression (Mainly caused by disabilities). I have been to the GP a few times with my depression and only got referrals which led to nothing being done about it, which led me to cannabis use.

I will never work due to my eyesight and hospital appointments which are every 2-3 weeks or so (I’m on ESA), which leaves me doing nothing but torture myself in front of my computer 24/7. My diabetes isn’t so much a problem but my appetite is helped by mild cannabis use.

Anyway, I started taking cannabis around 5-6 years ago for recreational use occasionally, so I knew what I was getting into once I started back up again for self treatment for depression.

I live with my mother of whom I care very much for (we haven’t had the easiest of lives), she doesn’t mind me taking cannabis except she gets very concerned about it being illegal and doesn’t want me to get into trouble with the law which I understand but it shouldn’t be that way. (she’s also my carer due to my eyesight)

Benefits of cannabis to me;

Depression: Cannabis makes a huge difference in my life; it gives me motivation, an appetite, a thirst for knowledge, I take an interest in many things that I wouldn’t normally do due to me beating myself up in my head, it keeps me focused and makes me FAR more sociable except the fact that I walk around wondering if the law enforcement are going to smell anything on me, which myself and many others shouldn’t have to worry about since we’re doing no harm. I also do not want to be taking prescription drugs as I’ve heard far too many horrific stories and seen too many character changes. Cannabis keeps me away from the dark thoughts I get and moves me towards the positive in life.

Hearing Impairment: I actually hear things a lot better/clearer and am very surprised no-one has approached the subject anywhere unless I missed something.

Appetite: As already stated, mild use helps a lot, I’m actually a fussy eater (sorry mum!) and through cannabis use I have tried and ate different things.

Here’s where it gets interesting…

Usher syndrome (Retinitis pigmentosa): Over the years of off and on cannabis use (prices, accessibility in the UK are horrendous), cannabis alleviates the constant static around my eyes, makes light less glarey, darkness more radiant and colours stick out more regardless of shades. I’ve tried googling this topic but most of it is aimed at actual scientists rather than someone who just wants information and it seems lackluster regarding research.

My association with anyone that deals in cannabis (mostly small amounts making me small fish) can be quite worrying to a point, because cannabis is illegal there’s a stigma that “Dealers = Criminals” and that makes people either a) Unaware (Yes, those people that still call it wacky baccy and get all repulsive) and b) Paranoid, even like myself at times. It gets rather panicky online at times if I may say so.

I don’t want to get myself in trouble, I’m not harming anyone.

I drink far less alcohol which brings me to my next point, cigarettes (nicotine). I don’t have willpower to stop smoking tobacco because of the weight and price problems in the UK and/or any other country (All the best to the mayor in Copenhagen) which forces us to smoke tobacco with it, making it more harmful. Let’s say I bought 1 gram, it costs £10 and it doesn’t even touch 0.7-0.8 occasionally 0.6, or when they can’t get any decent stuff which doesn’t make it last that long.

Fortunately no, I’ve not had any run ins with the police however they’re aware that I’ve taken cannabis when dealing with my previous charges, which were a fairly long time ago so I’m happy with that. There has also been worries of “spiking”. Only once I’ve experienced that and it wasn’t a good time, still don’t know what it was to this day.

A Medicinal Users Story - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

CLEAR is a political party, which means we can stand in any elections in the UK – to Parliament, the EU, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly and Local Council Elections.

Of all these options, the local elections offer the best chance for members to get involved. Standing as a prospective Councillor for your city or county authority is an interesting experience, do it properly and you get to see the election process at first hand and you get to know your local area in a way you never thought possible. Best of all, it’s essentially free, although of course there are things you can spend money on. Unlike standing in very much higher profile Parliamentary or EU elections you might even win a seat on your local council if you run a good enough campaign.

Standing in local elections is something just about anyone can do, so this is your chance to get involved – and it’s actually a lot of fun.

The whole point of standing for CLEAR in elections is to get the word out about cannabis law reform and that has to be the main thrust of your campaign, but of course you are free to raise any issues you think might be of interest to people in your local area as well as long as they don’t bring CLEAR into disrepute, which means you have to comply with our equal opportunity statement (here). You do have to be a party member of course!

What follows is a brief run-down of what’s involved. At the end of this post are links to the Electoral Commission information that tells you everything you need to know.

Anyone can stand for local elections provided they fulfill a few simple rules – essentially you must be be over 18, on the electoral role and do not have a current criminal record. If you fit these conditions then you can get yourself nominated.

Getting nominated is very easy, it shouldn’t take more than half an hour or so. You can get a list of all the people in the ward you want to stand in from the local authority, you then have to find 10 of them to sign a simple form saying they nominate you to stand. They don’t have to agree to vote for you! In order to stand under the CLEAR party name we will have to authorise you, which means you have to let us know you’re standing. Once we do that you can use our logo and that will appear on the ballot paper.

The best thing you can do is to print a leaflet and to deliver it to every house in your ward. We will provide you with a well designed CLEAR leaflet master for you to add a section about yourself and then print.

The printing of course costs a bit of money, but it’s really the only thing you do have to spend money on but print more than you need so you have some spares. There are a few important rules to be aware of when making your leaflet, but nothing too difficult. It must, for example, carry the name of the printers and your agent’s address – which probably means your address.

Keep any receipts for money you spend – such as for printing – because you do have to declare this afterwards. There is a limit of £600 per candidate – so don’t spend too much!

One of the most interesting things you do when standing in local elections is to walk up and down every street in the ward stuffing your leaflet through each door. I can promise you that even if you’ve lived in the area all your life you will see it from an entirely new perspective after doing this. Leaflet stuffing does take a little planning though, what you do is to get a map of the ward from the local authority (they will give you one) and buy yourself a highlighter pen. As you go out on your walks, mark off the streets you’ve covered. You should be able to do the whole area on your own in five or six sorties if you go at it, but of course if you’ve got a few helpers it’s much quicker.

To do the job really well though, you need to go canvassing – knocking on doors and introducing yourself as the CLEAR candidate. If leaflet stuffing is interesting, this is a real education. You will get a taste for how the local people think in a way you simply never do normally. Don’t worry, the vast majority people are friendly when you knock on the door, but if they don’t want to talk just say OK and leave. But have some of your leaflets to hand out – and actually give them one. Do this well and (despite lots of people saying “no” to you) you will pick up a decent vote. Again, there are a few rules you must follow and these are all explained in the leaflets linked to below, but there’s nothing too difficult.

When it’s all over you can go to the count. This is yet another experience, the campaign is over and all the people at the count – the other candidates – are there because they really enjoy the experience. You get to witness the counting process and contest any uncertain votes. The count is something not to be missed.

When it’s all over you have to submit your expenses and declare all the money you’ve spent – so you will need those receipts you’ve been keeping. If you win, you will be given a seat on your local council. If you lose, well, there’s always next time.

If you are interested in standing in the May local elections, please contact CLEAR – either via the feedback form or the Facebook members page.

Information about standing from the Electoral Commission

Pt 1 – Can you stand?
Pt 2 – Standing for a party
Pt 3 – Money (spending and donations)
Pt 4 – Campaigning does and don’ts
Pt 5 – Attending the count and other key events
Pt 6 – After the election

May Local Elections – Call For Candidates - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Rohan Morris, who is undertaking this study, has just given us this short update. He will be providing a “a lay summary” – a plain English summary – of the study and it’s findings later in the year and we will publish that when we get it.

But for now Rohan has asked us to carry this message

So far more than 200 people have given us half an hour or so of their time to complete our questionnaires. A big thank you to every one of you!

I appreciate not only the time people have spent answering our questions, but the openness and honesty of our participants. Without your willingness to share your thoughts, feelings, and experiences we would be unable to carry out this study.

It has been over three years since we first decided to conduct this research and in this time I have been given the opportunity to work on a project which I am passionate about and I have found it truly fascinating. Unfortunately, like all good things it must come to an end. It is nearly time for us to move into the analysis phase of the research. Consequently, we intend to stop collecting data in March, although the exact date is still to be confirmed.

If there is anyone who wishes to take part in this study then please complete the questionnaires prior to midnight (GMT). We are looking for people over the age of 18 who have used cannabis (at least once) and had a diagnosis of a mental health problem. You can take part in our research anonymously via our website

MMU Research Request Update - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

——————————–

My Thoughts On The Cannabis Debate

Max Fernandez

The question as to whether or not Cannabis should be ‘legalised’ has many layers, amongst which are lies, deceit, profits and victims. The campaign to effectively ban Cannabis has raged for many years, and has cost the lives of thousands of people. In the process of doing so however, politicians and cartel gang members have made hundreds of millions of pounds worth of profit.

Not only have politicians and gangsters profited, but so too have average hard working members of society; police men and women, as well as prison officers have found themselves in high demand by the political class. This in turn has created an incentive to further the so called ‘war on drugs’.

The media throughout the United Kingdom are often slow to criticise the lack of success which has been brought because of the war, and if criticism is placed on the government, they will try to encourage a harsher approach to the plant i.e. longer sentences for possession.

I myself support the idea that by legalising Cannabis, both for medicinal and recreational purposes, the Cannabis market can be controlled and regulated with much more ease. Imprisoning thousands of people, many of whom are otherwise law abiding, hard working productive members of society, whilst the drug kingpins become wealthy, simply defies logic.

There is hope for the Cannabis legalisation proponents, the recent democratic results in Washington and Colorado, where Cannabis was legalised for both medicine and enjoyment, means that opinions are changing. 2014 shall be another huge year as far as American Cannabis law reform is concerned.

After completing many hours of research into how the Cannabis legalisation campaign is conducted, both domestically and globally, I have come to the conclusion that the medical argument is the key to our success. I do believe that the vast majority of people, even those who are totally against the legalisation for recreational use, are able to be convinced of the success medical Cannabis can (and does) have. The majority of people would agree that imprisoning a man suffering with Cancer, for growing Cannabis plants to relieve his pain, is fundamentally immoral and cruel.

Much more focus should be applied to this side of the debate. Simply on moral grounds, opponents to medical Cannabis are at an immediate disadvantage. Pressure must be placed on the media and politicians to seriously consider this idea, and to have an open and honest debate as to the merits of the cause.

Once medical Cannabis is available (like nearly every other European country), people will be able to see firsthand that Cannabis has been lied about by the corrupt political media, and that its benefits outweigh its potential harms. The states in the USA that legalised medicinal Cannabis have gradually become more tolerant of Cannabis, and those who choose to consume it.

Usually attitudes soften due to the profits being made throughout their local areas. Many people have become employed because of the medicinal Cannabis industry. Illegal dealers also make fewer profits as a result of their sick customers choosing to buy from a legal outlet. Countries that have legalised medical Cannabis have been able to apply tax on it, allowing for greater spending in education and health.

Our campaign to see an end to prohibition will also need to be well funded. Politics has never been a fair field; those with the money tend to get their way. In truth, our campaign will never be as well funded as those who seek to stop us, but the more money that is raised the better. The more people that can be convinced to give their money to help us see an end this corrupt war, the easier our aims will become to implement.

It is a well known fact that recession makes society more willing to make riskier investments into their futures. Our economic argument should focus on Jeremy Bentham’s idea of Utilitarianism. Our sole economic mission is to inform the public of this. Poorer members of society will likely warm to this philosophy.

To conclude, I believe that our next main focus should be to see medicinal Cannabis legalised throughout the United Kingdom. This campaign will need to be in association with our American counterparts, as well as other global networks.

Close attention will also have to be paid as to how Washington and Colorado deal with Cannabis legalisation. Portugal and Uruguay are also examples where successes can be found and communicated with the general public.

A Personal Perspective On The Cannabis Debate - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The government’s drugs advisory committee the ACMD is having a similar problem with its attempts to add Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists (SCRAs), so-called “legal highs”, to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).

Now SCRAs present a very real problem; they are not, as is often claimed, “synthetic cannabis”. They are totally new chemicals unrelated to the cannabis plant or anything the cannabis plant produces. They are complex hydrocarbon molecules that act on the same part of the brain as does THC; “agonists” is scientist speak for a substance that goes to work on receptor areas of the brain and the receptor areas THC works on are called “cannabinoid receptors”.

Now brain chemistry is very complex stuff and even small changes in molecular structures can have huge differences in the effect chemicals have on the brain. By way of an example the two most common chemicals in cannabis are THC and CBD, they are very similar chemicals and yet have almost opposite effects on the brain. SCRAs are very different chemicals and although they do work on the same receptors as THC and so produce an effect a bit like getting stoned, nothing is known about what else they do or what happens if you have too much of them.

We have thousands of years of experience of cannabis, we know what it does. We have no experience of SCRAs, no understanding of any long term effects or even really that much knowledge of short term effects. The danger posed by SCRAs is very real and totally unquantifiable.

Hence the ACMD recommends they be added to the system they laughably call “drug control” and ban them under the MoDA, because as we know, prohibition is such an effective way of controlling drugs, ‘honest guv’. So the ACMD set out to define what SCRAs are so that they may be banned. The first nail was driven through the jelly with the publication of the ACMD definitions to be added to the MoDA with the “The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013″ (here).

4. For paragraph 1(c), substitute—
“(c)[2,3–Dihydro–5–methyl–3–(4–morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1, 2, 3–de]–1,4–benzoxazin–6–yl]–1–naphthalenylmethanone.
3–Dimethylheptyl–11–hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol.
[9–Hydroxy–6–methyl–3–[5–phenylpentan–2–yl] oxy–5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10a–octahydrophenanthridin–1–yl] acetate.
9-(Hydroxymethyl)–6, 6–dimethyl–3–(2–methyloctan–2–yl)–6a, 7, 10, 10a–tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen–1–ol.
Nabilone.

What could be difficult with that? It goes on

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)indole, 3-(2-naphthoyl) indole, 1H–indol–3–yl–(1–naphthyl)methane or 1H-indol-3-yl-(2-naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cyanoalkyl, hydroxyalkyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl, (N-methylpiperidin-2-yl)methyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

This is starting to get a bit impractical you might think, but there’s more

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)pyrrole or 3-(2-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring by alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cyanoalkyl, hydroxyalkyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl, (N-methylpiperidin-2-yl)methyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

And indeed it goes on like this for another six paragraphs and then adds another sub-section

1-Phenylcyclohexylamine or any compound (not being ketamine, tiletamine or a compound for the time being specified in paragraph 1(a) of Part 1 of this Schedule) structurally derived from 1-phenylcyclohexylamine or 2-amino-2-phenylcyclohexanone by modification in any of the following ways, that is to say,
(i)by substitution at the nitrogen atom to any extent by alkyl, alkenyl or hydroxyalkyl groups, or replacement of the amino group with a 1-piperidyl, 1-pyrrolidyl or 1-azepyl group, whether or not the nitrogen containing ring is further substituted by one or more alkyl groups;
(ii)by substitution in the phenyl ring to any extent by amino, alkyl, hydroxy, alkoxy or halide substituents, whether or not further substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent;
(iii)by substitution in the cyclohexyl or cyclohexanone ring by one or more alkyl substituents;
(iv)by replacement of the phenyl ring with a thienyl ring.”.

How is all this supposed to be enforced and, perhaps more importantly, how is anyone supposed to obey it? It all makes for a lot of substances which would now come under the prohibition laws, a lot of nails gone into the jelly. So how well fastened to the wall is this jelly? Well, as predicted, not at all. In the time all this was being written the development of SCRAs has moved on and they are now something else, chemicals not covered by the detailed list so painstakingly proposed. So all of the above is redundant before it’s even enacted. Dr Les King wrote in a blog on the ISCD site

“The latest report from ACMD proposes that those earlier definitions should be expanded to capture a wider range of cannabinoid agonists. Yet by the time that report appeared in October 2012, manufacturers had moved on. Table 1 (below) lists twelve substances (i.e. nearly half of the year’s total) that were notified to EMCDDA during 2012, none of which would be captured by the new ACMD recommendations.”

Dr King is wrong to call them “cannabinoid agonists”, they are “cannabinoid receptor agonists” as I’m sure he would accept – the difference is actually very important. You can see his table of substances on the blog by following the link, basically the recommendations are out of date before they’re even enacted, the jelly has fallen off the wall.

“Trying to stay one step ahead of the clandestine chemists would seem to be a futile exercise, involving the publication of regular and probably endless Modification Orders to the Misuse of Drugs Act. On the other hand, cannabinoid agonists are not harmless substances; they act in a similar way to THC. Furthermore, their varied, often high, potency relative to THC and their sale in unregulated products presents a real risk that users could consume excessive amounts in a way that is much less likely with cannabis or cannabis resin.”

That’s a somewhat begrudging way of saying they are more dangerous than cannabis. So what does Les King suggest?

“In conclusion, the answer is perhaps to do nothing.”

Stop putting any more nails in. Another way of saying this is the MoDA has failed, it cannot control these substances. Presumably then he is accepting they can be sold openly as a “safer” alternative to cannabis on the grounds that they are not illegal and therefore will not bring the user into conflict with the law. Also – as a bonus, will not show up on drug tests for employment or driving. Prohibition has been beaten, clearly for all to see.

If this is what happens, the prohibition law will really have created a problem. In its attempts to ban something known and relatively harmless – cannabis – it will have created an unknown, unquantifiable and uncontrollable problem. So in truth, “do nothing” is really not an option either. What we need to do is something different, something actually workable and which stops trying to do something that doesn’t work.

The market for SCRAs only exists because people want cannabis. The way to kill the trade in these synthetic drugs is to allow access the what people want – the real thing; cannabis.

Nailing Jelly to the Wall - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Derek

——————————–

Ten years ago a lump appeared in my neck. For more than a year I was back and forth to the hospital to be told it was a cyst and that it would go away, but unfortunately it never.

After an operation I was diagnosed with stage 4 hodgkins cancer of the lymph nodes (link). Eight tumours had been removed from my neck! Unfortunately because I had been misdiagnosed the cancer had spread to my stomach, my diaphragm and my bowl.

Nearly a year and a half of chemotherapy followed , unfortunately the prolonged chemo caused numerous problems  including Raynauds ( severe nerve damage) bowl disorder and suppressed immune system.

While in hospital I contacted MRSA which destroyed my left hip and for years after I struggled through life taking over 330 tablets every month. My body weight went from 13 and a half stone to 8 stone. It was at this time whilst searching the Internet I discovered medical cannabis and after reading many articles I decided to see if this could be the answer after years of medication; I was getting nowhere!

I obtained some cannabis from a friend and tried it and after more research I heard people were actually being cured with this stuff so I decided to try and treat myself. I grew my own medicine, refined it remove the goodness and turned it into a medical butter. Low and behold I was pain free for the first time in ten years. I started to gain weight, felt stronger and my life was back on track – I was a member of society once more.

I was alive again being able to do things I had not been able to do for years, finally I was happy.

My happiness was brought to a stop wen I was visited by the police. I was striped, handcuffed and arrested. Yes, I was a criminal and believe me I was treated as such, locked in a cell, fingerprinted and so on .

The police turned my house upside down, removed floor boards, emptied every draw. It looked like I had been burgled , even though the police confiscated powdered cannabis with all the Thc removed (evidence it had been turned into medicine) I have still been charged with production of cannabis and on the tenth of January I am to attend court were I face a prison sentence and a criminal record which will last for life .

My history is before my illness I was a regional director of a large very well known national company; I have never ever been in trouble before in my 44 yeas of life.

Mmy question is: Am I a criminal who deserves to be locked away from society or am I just a human being who is trying his hardest to stay alive?

If gw pharma produce medicine from cannabis then surely every director and every employee should be arrested and treated as I have been. I really thought this was an equal rights country were everyone is treated the same, if it is then everyone at GW pharma better watch out because the difference is they produce cannabis with intent to supply!

But I suppose if I had 20 million pound to give the government I would be fine to maybe I would be allowed to save my own life?

Mark: Cancer Sufferer, Medicinal Cannabis User; aka a “Criminal”. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

First Drugscope - which describes itself:

We are the leading UK charity supporting professionals working in drug and alcohol treatment, drug education and prevention and criminal justice. We are also the primary source of independent information on drugs and drug related issues.

Drugscope is, to be fair, the place most people would go for a definitive answer to drug issues, although it’s emphasis on prevention and criminal justice might make cannabis users justifiably cautious.

On New Years day, Drugscope issued the following tweet

K2, Spice, Salvia, Bath Salts… How much do you know about emerging drugs? Fact sheets from NIDA

Now when Drugscope recommend a factsheet it is usually worth checking out and both UKCIA and CLEAR have an interest in the first couple of substances mentioned: K2 and Spice. These two substances are “SCRA’s” – Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists to give them their full name. Both UKCIA and CLEAR run an information campaign about these substances called “Ex-SCRA – exposing Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists” (here), so I followed the link provided by Drugscope which pointed to the NIDA website

Now, NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) is not an objective website, it’s run by the American government and it’s stated aim is to provide information on “The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction”. The use of the term “drug abuse” gives a hint to NIDA’s agenda; all use is abuse. But what of the facts it provides about SCRA’s?. The page is here

“Spice” refers to a wide variety of herbal mixtures that produce experiences similar to marijuana (cannabis) and that are marketed as “safe,” legal alternatives to that drug. Sold under many names, including K2, fake weed, Yucatan Fire, Skunk, Moon Rocks, and others — and labeled “not for human consumption” — these products contain dried, shredded plant material and chemical additives that are responsible for their psychoactive (mind-altering) effects.

This is true, but somewhat shallow information for the professionals Drugscope is pointing towards this site. What it carefully doesn’t say is that these products are designed to look like real cannabis, or at least some magical alternative herb. They are real prohibition products, on the market to cash in ont he drugs policy NIDA is a part of.

Be-cause (sic) the chemicals used in Spice have a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has designated the five active chemicals most frequently found in Spice as Schedule I controlled substances, making it illegal to sell, buy, or possess them.

This illustrates the way the drug laws work rather better than a similar statement in the UK would do. The reason they are banned in the US is because people enjoy using them – the “high potential for abuse”. of course they have – they are marketed as being an alternative to the most popular prohibited drug in existence; cannabis. We know a lot about cannabis and we know that most if not all of the scare stories we’ve heard are lies.

Now there are good reasons for being concerned about SCRA’s, they are, after all chemicals which play around in the brain about which we know very little. They are all new chemicals, untested and with unknown long term consequences. Most importantly, despite the way they’re packaged up and marketed, they are not cannabis. Not in any way shape or form are they cannabis.

However, NIDA tells us

Spice products do contain dried plant material, but chemical analyses show that their active ingredients are synthetic (or designer) cannabinoid compounds.

This is, simply, wrong. SCRA’s are not cannabinoids and should not be presented as being so. A cannabinoid is

any of various chemical constituents (as THC) of cannabis or marijuana

SCRA’s have never seen the inside of a cannabis plant, they are totally artificial man made chemicals. They are not “synthetic (or designer) cannabinoid compounds”. The correct term for them is “Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists” because of the effect they have on the brain, not on the nature of the drug itself. Although not Cannabinoids, they act on the Cannabinoid receptors – the same part of the brain cannabis affects. This isn’t a pedantic point, what these chemicals actually do when they interact with the Cannabinoid receptors is anyone’s guess. Understanding why that is important is key to understanding why SCRA’s are so dangerous.

Drugscope prides itself in providing hard facts about drugs, yet links to third rate information like this.

Another drug information source is HIT – the Liverpool based drugs agency. HIT is running a one-day course on cannabis:

What’s the Deal on… Cannabis? (S-CAN)
Date: Wed 23 Jan
Duration: 1 days
Location: Liverpool
Tutor: Alan Matthews

The blurb states

Cannabis has been utilised by human beings for millennia, both for its psychoactive properties and its fibres. In fact, some archaeologists believe it was the first plant to be cultivated by man, even before we were growing plants for food. But over the past 100 years this humble plant has, by turns, been glorified and vilified. What is it about cannabis that so confounds us?

So far so good

This one-day course takes an in-depth look at the history, pharmacology, effects and risks of cannabis. Its present day status will be explored in the light of its social use, medicinal application and potential for harm. For those wishing to reduce or stop their cannabis use, practical steps will be considered on how best to address cannabis-related problems and initiate and support behaviour change.

Now any factual examination of cannabis should also include the reasons why people enjoy using it socially and the benefits they get from it as well as the dangers. Will this course examine the destructive effects of the current prohibition policy?

The learning outcomes are listed as

To review the historical context and current cultural relevance of cannabis
To understand the pharmacological actions of cannabis in lay terms
To clarify the latest information on cannabis-related problems
To consider treatment options and how best to support behaviour change

Doesn’t sound like it.

Finally, a quick mention for The Sun – that trusty source of information from the home of reliable news, Rupert Murdoch’s News International. The Sun is hardly worth the title of a “Newspaper”, indeed it usually makes the Daily Mail look intellectual and hard core left wing. The Sun is the definition of the gutter press and its latest cannabis shock horror has driven it to new lows.

Don’t go soft on cannabis…it turned me into a thieving heroin addict

Straight out of the 1950′s campaign of misinformation and hype. The story concerns Ocean Hanna – that’s her name – who tells of how cannabis ruined her life:

Speaking exclusively to The Sun, the recovering addict, now 22, says: “For people with addictive personalities or who need to fill a void, legalising cannabis could be so dangerous.

“My problems started with alcohol. I moved on to cannabis, then cocaine, and eventually heroin.

Hang on. She started with alcohol, then cannabis? So her “gateway” to harmful drug use was alcohol then? It’s an interesting variation on the “cannabis opened the door to drugs” story we usually get.

In June 2008, Ocean moved to Oxford, she was due to start the course in September that year. But within a matter of weeks she fell in with the wrong crowd and started drinking heavily, as well as smoking cannabis. This eventually led to her snorting cocaine.

So we can see how it was cannabis that caused all her troubles and we can be thankful that prohibition did such a good job of protecting her.

Quite how the Sun draws the conclusions it does from this story isn’t obvious to put it mildly. Perhaps the paper is worried by the support for drug law reform its readers showed recently and is doing its best to do something about it.

Don’t buy he Sun.

Who to trust for reliable information? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party