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

As always, money was tight but we got the £500 deposit together and put CLEAR’s candidate – Peter Reynolds – name forward. We owe Naomi and our local members a vote of thanks for helping us get the nomination papers in on time.

Getting the leaflet printed and sent out involved jumping through a whole set of hoops to keep the Royal mail happy, made somewhat more complicated by the printers failing to deliver all of the print run on time. A series of urgent phone calls and last minute arrangements saved the day. We were quite proud  of the leaflet, if you haven’t seen it it’s here. Because it was our chance to tell everyone about our message, getting the leaflet out was perhaps the main point in standing.

Needless to say the amount of media coverage we got was close to zero, despite the  votes legalising cannabis in the USA which really should have made cannabis law reform something of an issue. Peter did get a couple of local radio interviews, BBC News24 interviewed him and the local press both mentioned his existence. But not one of our daily press releases was picked up. Worse, when the BBC radio 4 World this Weekend reported from the town the reporter and his sound guy happened across us as we were having a coffee and stopped for a long chat. They told us they were there to get voters comments, but the report that went out featured just one such comment and interviews with all the mainstream parties and the BNP.

The reception we got from the people of Corby was positive on the whole, just about everyone was friendly and receptive to the points we made. There was one exception, a lady who insisted the idea of getting the dealers off the street by licencing and controlling them was outrageous as they were making her life hell. It’s hard to reason with people like that and she came back for a second go as well. Most of the people we spoke to understood the points we were making though.

However, we did run up against a small problem

Corby town centre, where everyone gathers on a Saturday, is all privately owned. It looks like public streets (albeit traffic free), but it’s not. A guard working for the private company who owns it (not the one shown in the clip) first objected to my video camera “because it was against the terrorism act”, and called the manager who informed us us the company refused to allow any canvassing by parties “in the interests of neutrality”and we e were told to “leave the town”! The issue of private ownership of pubic spaces has been a growing problem for some time, but if it starts to be used to prevent the operation of the democratic process we have a very real problem. Canvassing voters is central to our democratic process has a long tradition, it’s something that should be a right, but apparently it’s not. In Corby, the town centre is the only place where large numbers of people gather – it is, literally, the centre of the community.

This did severely limit what we were able to do in terms of meeting the people of Corby and getting our message out. Add to this that we werren’t allowed to tie posters on lampposts – something I’ve done before at election times and it’s always been tolerated providing they were taken down within a couple of weeks of the election. In Corby we were told “No”.

We also paid the surrounding towns of Thrapstone and Oudle a visit. These are very different places to Corby, politically conservative and very pretty little towns. Again. we were generally quite well received, people stopped and talked to us, took our leaflets and gave us positive feedback. Interestingly there was no problem with canvassing in these places.

On a positive note talking to other candidates at the count we were given the impression they all accepted things were probably going to change with the cannabis laws – even the BNP seem to accept it now.

In the event we polled 137 (0.38%)  which wasn’t a great result, but we never expected to win and getting votes wasn’t the reason for standing. The full results were

Andy Sawford (Lab) 17,267 (48.41%, +9.71%)
Christine Emmett (C) 9,476 (26.57%, -15.63%)
Margot Parker (UKIP) 5,108 (14.32%)
Jill Hope (LD) 1,770 (4.96%, -9.48%) – lost deposit
Gordon Riddell (BNP) 614 (1.72%, -2.93%)
David Wickham (Eng Dem) 432 (1.21%)
Jonathan Hornett (Green) 378 (1.06%)
Ian Gillman (Ind) 212 (0.59%)
Peter Reynolds (Cannabis) 137 (0.38%)
David Bishop (Elvis) 99 (0.28%)
Mr Mozzarella (Ind) 73 (0.20%)
Dr Rohen Kapur (Young) 39 (0.11%)
Adam Lotun (Dem 2015) 35 (0.10%)
Chris Scotton (UPP) 25 (0.07%)

It’s not easy to run an election campaign in Corby for an independent group like us and the attention of the media was very much on the Labour/Conservative battle. The person to really feel sorry for was Adam Lotun, who was campaigning on a platform that should have been well received in Corby, given it’s high rates of unemployment. He worked really hard and came up against the same problems we did of simply not being able to get his message out.

We did our best to get the issue of cannabis law reform on the agenda and we managed to do that to some extent, overall it was a valuable experience and over the next week or so we’ll decide on how to engage in future elections.

The Corby Experience - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The latest local church attendance figures from the Church of England for 2010 show that approaching 1.7 million people continue to attend Church of England services each month, and around 1.1 million attend one of the Church of England’s 16,000 churches as part of a typical week.

So there are many more cannabis users than regular church goers.

I only mention this comparison with church attendance to underline how common cannabis use is in today’s society, it really is at such a level as to be considered “normalised” by most standards, yet it remains something that is illegal, supposedly the focus of a policy designed to bring about the eradication of the pass-time, It should be obvious by now that cannabis use is not going to be eradicated, whatever your view of it cannabis is here to stay as they say, get used to it.

Believe it or not cannabis is supposed to be prohibited. Prohibition is madness, it’s a policy that keeps this huge culture underground and in the arms of a massive uncontrolled criminal industry.It tries to protect people by criminalising them and calls itself “drug control” by making any form of control impossible.

The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC)  drugs inquiry is over now as far as we can tell. I don’t hold out much hope that it will bring any significant change, partly because it was chaired by Keith Vaz who is an MP very unlikely to rock any boats but also because the government has made it abundantly clear it has no intention of making any changes to the prohibition law, no matter how persuasive the argument, no matter what the evidence.

It’s not just this government, this blind faith in prohibition extends to both main parties, but it’s worth remembering that is now upheld by  David Cameron who previously stated – before he came to power – that he wanted to see change. The degree people like David Cameron and the whole government is committed to prohibition has to be suspect, it’s hard to think of any policy in any other area that would have been allowed to coast along in the way drug policy has with no hint of success and with no attempt to measure its impact. It’s as if someone is making a lot of money from the whole sorry mess, it’s hard indeed to think of any other explanation beyond corruption of some form.

The best we can hope for from the HASC is consideration of the idea of decriminalisation, perhaps along the lines of the Portugal regime which we can expect to be rejected. So would that be a good thing? Should we welcome in effect a blind eye being turned to small scale drug use, what is often called “taking a softer line”?

Decrim is not legalisation, it would still allow some kind of non-criminal sanction against cannabis consumers, but it would at least be non-criminal. Also, it does nothing to change the nature of the supply side which would still be uncontrolled, unregulated and a source of funds for organised criminals and terrorists.

Let’s be clear about this: If it were not for the horror that is prohibition a policy like decriminalisation would be objectionable madness. The only thing decrim has going for it is it’s not as bad as full on prohibition; people who do have problems with their drug use are less inhibited from coming forward for help and less people will have their lives ruined by a criminal record.

So should we welcome a “softer” line on drugs? I don’t like that sort of question because I would want to answer “no” to it, but I would want to answer “no” because I support real drug law reform and want to see an end to prohibition, not some half-way house of tinkering with the present regime in the hope of making it less bad.

What I want to see is a proper regime of control for the commercial supply of drugs used for enjoyment*, especially cannabis. It’s important to realise the commercial supply of drugs exists whether or not it’s legal, and at the moment represents a huge mutli billion pound endeavour reaching into every section of society.

The one thing prohibition is not is “drug control”. Prohibition doesn’t even try to control drugs because that can only be done by controlling the trade. Instead prohibition tries to control people – each and every one of us – which is why it doesn’t work. Decrim would not be drug control either, nothing would change in that respect.

Controlling drugs means properly enforced laws over the supply side to ensure the product is clean, of known strength and potency and not supplied by unsuitable people, along with other measures to protect the vulnerable such as age limits for sales. This isn’t a “softer” line, it would be a very real form of drug control. It would be a more practical regime than we have now because it would be in the interests of the consumers, it would have their support and it wouldn’t treat the people it was designed to help as criminals.

But of course I do support anything that would make the situation less bad, it makes no sense to carry on arresting people, ruining lives, tearing families apart and all the other things prohibition does. Decriminalising small scale use makes sense – or as much sense as it’s possible to have under the current mad regime. It’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, only a little bit better but better none the less.

This is why I support CLEAR in its call for cannabis law rerom even though I don’t use it myself. The forthcoming by-election in Corby is an opportunity to try to put the whole sorry mess that is prohibition onto the political agenda. For sure, none of the mainstream parties wants to talk about it.

____________________________

* A footnote: I wrote above “drugs used for enjoyment”, someone is bound to ask about medical use of cannabis. My personal take on this is yes of course, medical use is something that should never be denied, even if the “medical use” simply makes an illness easier to deal with. In my opinion to do so is tantamount to torture. Fact is though, the free use of cannabis for medical reasons will never be possible while so-called “recreational” use is prohibited. If some form of recreational use becomes legal, then medical use becomes available by default – as do all the non-drug uses of hemp etc. So the way I see it is that the focus of the law reform effort should be on recreational use.

Does Decriminalisation Make Sense? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/does-decriminalisation-make-sense/feed/ 10 http://www.clear-uk.org/manchester-metropolitan-university-study/ http://www.clear-uk.org/manchester-metropolitan-university-study/#comments Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:56:18 +0000 Derek Williams http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=7441 Read more...

Manchester Metropolitan University Study - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> For the past few weeks UKCIA and CLEAR have been promoting a study being carried out by Manchester metropolitan University (MMU): A study into cannabis and mental illness. See the introduction to the study here

It was just about 10 years ago now the campaign of “Reefer Madness V2″ hit the news, during which it was claimed cannabis caused severe mental illness – Psychosis and schizophrenia. That was a very serious claim to make and a very disturbing one; mental illness is one of the last taboos and it scares people, which is why the prohibition lobby were so keen to promote the scare stories. Much of the claims were eventually shown to be overstated but were used by to attack the then recent downgrading of cannabis to class C under the misuse of drugs act. This wasn’t the first time this had happened of course, with Reefer Madness being an important part of the original campaign against cannabis (if you haven’t seen the film, do watch it), hence the term “Reefer Madness V2″.

Reefer Madness V2 was a destructive and damaging campaign for many reasons, not least because it played on fears of mental illness but also because it was touted by the prohibition lobby it was seen for what it was by many cannabis users, who understandably perhaps treated all discussion of the issue as prohibition rubbish.

Now some time has passed and most of the alarmist claims about cannabis as a cause of mental illness have been shown to indeed be hype, we have come to accept a link between cannabis use and mental illness in some people. The nature of this link is far from clear and isn’t anything like the simple causal link the prohibition lobby were claiming, but it does seem that the people at risk of mental illness do react badly to cannabis and yet for some reason often tend to use it heavily, which makes the situation worse.

As we know cannabis isn’t s simple “drug” in the sense that it is the raw product of a herb and as such “cannabis the drug” is actually the combined effect of several active chemicals produced by the plant, most importantly (but by no means only) THC and CBD. It may well be that plants low in CBD pose a higher risk to this section of society at risk of developing mental illness.

It also seems logical to assume that cannabis use by children isn’t a good thing as the brain is still developing. Brains grow as they learn, a process called “plasticity” and drugs (and also some things that aren’t drugs) may well interfere with this growing/learning process. So keeping kids away form drugs of all kinds, not just cannabis, is a pretty obvious thing to do.

So rather than “reefer madness V2″, the mental health campaign of the last decade should have taught us was that proper controls are needed over the cannabis supply industry. Far from being an issue that supported the prohibition argument, this is one for law reformers, indeed it’s one of the most powerful arguments in favour of cannabis legalisation.

It does seem that a very small number of people might be at risk from using cannabis, if not of actually of developing an illness they wouldn’t otherwise have had, then of becoming more seriously ill and for longer. At this time, there’s no way of knowing who might be in this high risk category. That’s the thing about serious mental illness; there is no way to spot it in advance, there never has been.

The researchers at MMU put it this way:

However, a relatively small proportion of users, with a so-called ‘high schizotypy’ personality profile (characterised by a willingness to adopt irrational beliefs, susceptibility to perceptual disturbances and poor interpersonal social skills) are at increased risk of experiencing proportionately fewer positive and more negative effects of the drug. We believe that such individuals may, through continued use of cannabis, be putting themselves at increased risk of later mental illness.

Is it possible then to spot the people at risk of developing psychosis through their cannabis use before it happens, before they actually get ill? Are there any tell-tale signs they show when using cannabis which are actually warning signs that would set them apart from most other users? If some kind of “symptom” could be identified then it would be possible to target advice about cannabis to these people to help them make a well-informed decision about their cannabis use. That is the aim of this study.

Essentially, we want to see if people with ongoing problems, who have also used (and may continue to use) cannabis, have the same or similar reactions to the drug as people without a history of mental health problems, and if not, how their responses differ.

A very important outcome of our proposed research is the identification of cannabis-induced experiences that could predict increased proneness to subsequent psychosis in currently ‘healthy’ individuals, and your involvement in our study could help us achieve this goal!

Scientists have a strange language for describing this sort of thing, they call it a “pre morbid” indication. “Morbid” in this sense means

Relating to or caused by disease; pathological or diseased

So “pre morbid” means something related to or caused by the disease that happens before the illness shows. Although there are no clear-cut signs of an emerging mental illness, there are “pre morbid indications” that really only become evident with the benefit of hindsight, they’re usually the sort of mood swings most teenagers go through to some extent or other.

The reason this study caught my eye though was through hearing the stories which made the news a few years ago which were presented as “evidence” that cannabis caused psychosis. A common theme ran through most if not all of the stories; all the young people described had been very heavy cannabis users.

Now most people who discover cannabis enjoy the occasional “session” where everyone gets very stoned, but this was something different. Many of the stories told featured kids who had taken to cannabis like a duck to water, toking away every day and getting through vast amounts. Now a simple conclusion to draw from that is that heavy use caused the illness, but it is also more than possible that the illness caused the heavy use. Is it possible that this heavy use was one of these pre morbid indications? In which case, did these kids experience something more or different to the average “normal” user? This is the sort of thing, with luck, this study might answer.

So if you have a history of mental health issues – of any kind – and you have used or do use cannabis (including if you do so because you find it helps your condition), please take part in this study, you can see how to do so here

Serious mental illness strikes out of the blue and in all the years scientists have been looking at it no advance warning has ever been identified. Psychosis is a nasty illness, it always has been a nasty illness, it has always existed at about the same level as it does today and it has always affected the same section of society; mostly male, mostly in late teenage/early 20′s – young people whose lives are often wrecked by this devastating illness

A few years ago in 2008 a large study in Denmark (familial predisposition for psychiatric disorder – read it here) made this observation:

Psychotic symptoms after cannabis use should be taken extremely seriously. It is recommended that individuals with a cannabis-induced psychosis … be treated as though the condition is a first sign of schizophrenia, regardless of predisposition to a psychiatric disorder.

So possibly a cannabis induced psychosis might be an early warning of an impending illness, but ideally it would be far better to find an indication way before that happened. So looking far beyond the scope of this study, is there an interesting possibility that could flow from this line of thinking? If it could be demonstrated that people at high risk of developing a psychotic illness really did react in an identifiably “different” way to cannabis, could this in some way provide an advance warning of a developing illness? Having advance warning of an illness like schizophrenia would be dynamite and a potentially wonderful thing. It would be beyond irony, given the prohibitionist hype, if cannabis were to provide that long looked for advanced warning.

Manchester Metropolitan University Study - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/manchester-metropolitan-university-study/feed/ 2 http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/ http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/#comments Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:19:03 +0000 Derek Williams http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=7432 Read more...

CLEAR T Shirts - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> Show your support for CLEAR with a CLEAR TShirt

 

 

Only a few left – avaiable in  XL and XXL sizes

Send  £25 inc P&P to CLEAR, PO Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey. RH1 1BN – don’t forget your return address!

Or order through PayPal:

What size?

XL £25.00 GBP XXL £25.00 GBP

CLEAR T Shirts - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/feed/ 1 http://www.clear-uk.org/wrist-bands/ http://www.clear-uk.org/wrist-bands/#comments Sat, 06 Oct 2012 11:48:38 +0000 Derek Williams http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=7282 Read more...

Wrist Bands! - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]>

Show your support for CLEAR with a wrist band and help us raise the funds we need to campaign effectively

£3 each plus 50p post and packing

Send  a cheque/PO/cash to CLEAR at Wristbands, CLEAR, PO Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey. RH1 1BN

Or use the PayPal button below

How Many?

1 wristband £3.50 GBP 5 wristbands £15.00 GBP 10 wristbands £25.00 GBP

Help CLEAR change the law!

Wrist Bands! - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/wrist-bands/feed/ 4