Saturday, December 3, 2011 -

    Cameron And Merkel, Untruths And Deception. How Their Lies About Cannabis Reveal The Truth About Them

    In February on YouTube, David Cameron said cannabis is:

    1.”incredibly damaging”

    2. “very, very toxic”

    3. “and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems”

    And then, with regard to medicinal cannabis, he said:

    4. “That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.”

    This week on YouTube, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor was asked two questions:

    Q. What is your opinion regarding the demand to substitute the existing black market for cannabis by a regulated market restricted to adults and with a quality control (including THC content), and use the tax money earned for increased preventative measures?

    A. I do not agree with that. I think, we have made exceptions in very specific cases. However, we should not legalise cannabis in general. Of course the question is: Is overall prohibition a reason of the black market?; one could say that. On the other hand, legalizing it would lower the threshold for use even more, and we do consider the side-effects of cannabis so dangerous that this should not be done.  After all, there are two million cannabis users and that is already way too many, I think. Thus I tend to, or it is in my opinion, not to legalise it in general.

    Q. Now, there are two million users or buyers of cannabis. However, there are many times more number of people consuming alcohol and tobacco, of course. The latter is taxed and thus integrated into our normal society. Why is there this difference? Is there a historical precedent, or can this be justified — by whatever means — by applying plausible facts?

    A. We think of cannabis as a drug, in accordance with international opinions. This means that even consuming small amounts can lead to very severe dependence. With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is
    the case with cannabis according to our opinion. With alcohol there surely is an element of a tradition. However, enjoyed in moderation, as supplement to a meal for example, alcohol is not something that causes immediate dependence. Still, there is a great need for prevention and information in this matter.

    Did they both go on the same DEA misinformation course? Do they think we’re stupid?

    They both speak untruths. What they say about cannabis is factually incorrect. The statements about damage, toxicity, mental health problems, danger and dependence are all absolute nonsense. They are false and easily disproved. Cameron’s words about the availability of medicinal cannabis are a cynical deception. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

    What this shows is that both Cameron and Merkel hold the people of Britain and Germany in the deepest contempt. They both lie with impunity and with reckless disregard for their duty. They each commit an act of treachery to their country by their dishonesty and deception. Clearly this is a joint enterprise. They conspire with the United States government to deceive and misinform their electorates. They are charlatans and fraudsters.

    What we should really be worried about is how far this extends. They care not one jot for the truth about cannabis, for criminalising millions of citizens, wasting billions in taxpayers funds, nor for denying millions more safe and effective relief from pain, suffering and disability.

    What about the economy, defence, health care, social services, Iran, China, Africa, climate change, any other policy you care to think about?

    What lies, deceit and misinformation are we subject to on a daily basis? Why do we trust these dishonest, self-serving tyrants at all?

    The access to truth that the internet provides and has seen the dictators of the Arab world overthrown has work yet to do. Either the leaders of the western world must face up to reality and put aside their dishonesty or they must start to repress and misinform us even more.

    The euro crisis, the impending US attack on Iran, the brutalisation of Gaza, the wider “war on drugs” and CIA-run trade in heroin and cocaine. The unstable nuclear state of Pakistan.

    Never has the world been so ripe for revolution and war.

    Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

    Related news:

    1. Cannabis Con Becomes Cannabis Lies
    2. Cameron On Cannabis Part 7
    3. Cameron On Cannabis Part 8
    4. Cameron On Cannabis Part 9
    5. Reefer Madness In A Final Frenzy
    • James T

      We should all smoke a bowl and chill out – problems solved 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bengt-Erixon/564181514 Bengt Erixon

      That would solve my problem for sure. But not those in need unable to get what they need. So sorry no go there ;) I want to point out that Angela Merkel says “With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is the case with cannabis according to our opinion.” Which of course also is a big fat lie. Cigarettes are HIGHLY addictive, and so is alcohol. I heard when i was a kid that some alcoholic only needed 1 glass and they were hooked! And about “this is the case with cannabis according to our opinion” which is untrue, there are reports that states Cannabis is NOT addictive and besides “according to our opinion” is no evidence and pure BS, and who is OUR? I say stop making criminals out of people and educate them in how to use drugs. ANY drug.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Morton/100002114691648 Tim Morton

      As Cheech Marin said,” the first time you get stoned it’s like…WOW…what else have they lied to us about?”

    • Stevester

      Notice the bit at the bottom of the first answer  ” not to legalise it in general ” in other words we will not legalise it for the public we will only legalise it for big Pharma so they can reap the benefits .

    • Anonymous

      with all due respect, that attitude has not and never will solve anything. a large part of the reason cannabis is still prohibited in 2011 is because not enough cannabis users are willing to do anything other than that. we need more people to be proactive and to break these kinds of stereotypes.

    • Cshaws

      Very similar to Jack Herer’s experience.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Derek-Williams/1072934911 Derek Williams

      Merky said

      “We think of cannabis as a drug, in accordance with international
      opinions”.

      She is, of course, right in a  sense; cannabis is thought of being a drug in a way that alcohol and tobacco are not becuase of the way the UN single convention is drafted. Now we know that’s wrong, but many people don’t.

      Now, because cannabis is a drug and alcohol and tobacco are not:

      “This means that even consuming small amounts can lead to very
      severe dependence”.

      Because, of course, that’s what all drugs do isn’t it?

      “With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited
      consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is the case with cannabis according to our opinion.”

      “Opinion” – not “scientific advice” – interesting.

      Indeed, as regards cannabis it is the opinion of many people who haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about. I am surprised she said that about tobacco though, because it is general knowlwdge that tobacco is indeed highly addictive and even moderate use runs the risk of addiction and health damage in general.
      I wonder how much of that was corrupted in translation? Taking it at face value though Merky simply comes across as badly informed, albeit still willing to state an opinion based on ignorance which is worrying, whereas Cameron knows he was telling a huge series of porky-pies.I’m not sure which is worse, an ignorant dip-stick or a lier.

    • martyn

      when i call them criminals ,im not remotely joking. Im 200% serious

    • Cshaws

      Liar trumps ignoramus every time. Even if it’s spelled incorrectly :^) PS She’s too fat to be dip-stick.

    • James T

      I totally agree. 

      More people need to speak up and play their part or there will never be change. 

      Act now, chill later. 

    • M. osborne.

      DISINFORMATION! Turn on the shower instead of water you get gas. POLI-TRICKS! MONEY JUNKIES! rule the world, liars both in words and deeds .

    • David Raynes

      Peter
      Cameron has changed his view on the harms of cannabis since he was on the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002. He has made that explicitly clear. He is not alone, Les Iversen the current Chair of the ACMD has also changed his view about legalisation. Sensible people, changing their view when the evidence changes. The Independent on Sunday newspaper, which led the campaign to legalise cannabis, changed its view, Rosie Boycott, one time pro cannabis campaigning editor, changed hers. There are changes afoot in the Netherlands. The Association of Chief Police officers (ACPO) changed its view. The UK’s National Director of Mental Health made a powerful plea at the ACMD for cannabis to be recalssified back to Class B.

      These changes of opinion are not just accidents or aberrant behaviour. They are a response to evidence.

      Of couirse you have your position, seemingly set in concrete. It is you who is out of step. You remind me of all those folk, who for 50 years or more, were in denial about the harms of tobacco.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      There is no new evidence showing any greater risk from cannabis use.  In fact, the latest clinical trials of super strong, super concentrated, 51% THC Sativex show it is remarkably safe and non-addictive:

      http://clear-uk.org/leading-scientists-confirm-that-cannabis-is-safe-and-non-addictive/

      There is a torrent of new evidence proving the safety and efficacy of medicinal cannabis and with it has come a ramping up of prohibitionist propaganda.  The Daily Mail casually falsifies scientific evidence on a regular basis to suit its agenda secure that the PCC will do nothing about it.

      Les Iversen has not changed his view.  I know that first hand.  The IoS “Apology” was based on false science.  The moves in Holland are mere posturing by religious moralisers.  Look to Copenhagen for rational polcymaking.

      http://clear-uk.org/reefer-madness-in-a-final-frenzy/

      If you can cite any new evidence showing greater risk from cannabis please do so, rather than just empty assertions that it exists.

    • Anonymous

      @ David Raynes What misguided arrogance! You come to this site and, from a position of ignorance, lambast somebody who is probably more knowlegeable in the wide field of cannabis than anybody else in the country! @facebook-564181514:disqus 

      “You remind me of all those folk, who for 50 years or more, were in denial about the harms of tobacco”.

      But they were the fat cats from the tobacco and advertising industries, denying the truth that doctors and researchers had established, in order to protect their commercial interests.

      It is the same now, with cannabis: don’t you understand the amount of vested interest and huge wealth that is at play, influencing our corrupt politicians and people in authority?

      Peter Reynolds doesn’t suffer fools gladly, so I think you got off lightly: rather, he is pointing out to you what you should have done before commenting – to inform yourself. 

    • M. osborne.

      The problem is prohibtion.It allows badly grown cannabis “Un-ripe,not flushed out” this is like eating an un-ripe apple that gives you a bad stomach.”UN-RIPE” cannabis gives you a bad head and soap bar is full of cantaminants “CAUSED BY PROHIBTION” GW pharmaceuticals and the Government know this .As for your remarks on tobacco what do you think of angela merkels comments on tobacco and alcohol? Does this not show YOU how they LIE and LIE. DISINFORMATION! Sounds to me like your so-called “FACTS” have been gleaned from a media that is being used to “DISINFORM” people and you are a victim!. 

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      You are entirely right to highlight Merkel’s disgustingly irresponsible and inaccurate remarks about alcohol and tobacco.  Forget anything she said about cannabis.  Judged only on her understanding of the harms of alcohol and tobacco she is unfit for office.

    • G. Penny

      Everyone needs to speak up, everyone wants this but no one is willing to do anything, we are being denied our lierty, not just marijuana the whole system is a screw up and they are the biggest criminals.

      There are over 2000 votes here we need more lets make this one count, if there are over 1 million cannabis users why isnt anyone doing anything?

      Everyone who visits here please SPREAD this link for others to sign

      This is a OFFICIAL HM.GOV PETITION TO LEGALISE MARIJUANA IN THE UK

      http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29

      Poll closes 04/08/2012 come on guys we have work to do!

    • martyn

      aaaah ,i have come across a few of you these last few days,,all saying the same as what you have just said,,,”well if all the netherlands is now changing,,the tobacco folk also thought their drug was once safe,,theyve changed it to class B ,,this guy here said cannabis is safe,and now he is saying it isnt”  are you sock puppet accounts set up or what? your describing the actions of compulsive liars and talking like their decisions are based on scienctific facts,,so your either sock puppet software or just a flat earther.

    • Anonymous

      I think there is one word to describe your understanding of the modern Cannabis argument-
      Naivety.I don’t mean that at all in an offensive way.I am just trying to make you understand that the world has never been a purely black and white place to live in and it probably never will be.Let’s look at booze as an example, considering that old Angie merkel thinks thats it’s not so bad.I believe that she is not only wrong but actually extremely reckless in her comments about alcohol and cigarettes.
      That’s why laws are in place on the amount of Alcohol a person can consume whilst still being in a fit condition to operate a motor vehicle.It was regulated for a reason.In my opinion it is wrong and the actual amount of booze someone has in their system should be closer to zero.But it’s something at least and the alternative would be either drink as much as you want-not a very good idea, or ban booze all together.Been there, done that.Didn’t work.
      That’s before we even get to the point about how deadly alcohol is DIRECTLY to an individual and potentially those around them.As for the effects and long term risk of alcohol abuse, or even just misuse-IE: having a little too much to drink quite often, I can only suggest that you seek the counsel of a toxicologist or alcohol dependency professional or even your own doctor and ask them two things.
      1:How many drinks does it take for a new user to get hooked on booze and 
      2:what is the lethal dose for an adult to drink before they have an alcohol overdose.
      Then you decide if what Angela said was true.In my opinion her lax attitude to Alcohol does more harm than good.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15997695 

      As for Cannabis, seems she inadvertently admitted that there was no real new scientific evidence for this continued draconian law.
      This is why old Angie only stated that …’thus I tend to, or it is in my opinion, not to legalise it in general’
      My opinion is not the same as scientific fact.
      My opinion doesn’t help a drug problem either.

      As for her comments on cannabis being worse than cigarettes…
      ‘We think of cannabis as a drug, in accordance with international opinions. This means that even consuming small amounts can lead to very severe dependence. With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is the case with cannabis according to our opinion’

      This is without doubt one of the most ignorant and inaccurate comments made by a premier I have heard since Cameron on Cannabis.She actually said this about two of the world’s most highly addictive and biggest killers!
      I found the comment perplexing, inaccurate and offensive to the memory of my own mother who died of cancer due to many years of addiction to Tobacco.
      I am myself an ex smoker and can reassure you as well as Angie Merkel, that giving up tobacco for me was one of the hardest things I ever did in my life and it took me a few years to do it.Even after watching my mother slowly die from the cancer these things gave her.As for me, I was hooked on my first cigarette and not my tenth.But I still think a person has a right to smoke cigarettes if they wish.I personally would not recommend it from my experience.

      My advice to you about cannabis is to first research it’s history before you stampede for it’s pharmacology.We know that Cannabis can be dangerous, all the more reason for regulation.It’s still a scientific fact that Cannabis is many times safer than fags and booze and always has been. 

       
      Check the real fact’s and actual dangers my friend, before you end up like Cameron and Merkel and become the perfect example of what money, misinformation and media sleight of hand tactics can perform on an individual, who wants to see only in black and white, so as not to notice the ruddy great big purple elephant drunkenly staggering around the room,taking a huge dump on the host’s rug and falling face first onto the celebration cake, whilst almost catching the curtains on fire with it’s fag!

      OPINIONS SHOULD NEVER TAKE THE PLACE OF SCIENCE!

    • Bren

      For ease of use I’ve made a nice tinyurl for the e-petition:

      http://tinyurl.com/legaliseuk

      Please get more people to sign the petition!!! It needs 100,000 and there’s only 12,000 currently…. COME ON PEOPLE!!!

    • David Raynes

      Dear stickybud

      I was actually thinking much more of the tobacco users of the 40s, 50s & 60s, who were in a state of denial over the harms.

      I also understand the vast wealth that has been spent on trying to get drugs, including cannabis, legalised. Millions of dollars internationally from George Soros and others. In the UK, big money from the Esmee Fairburn Foundation and Amanda Neidpath Baroness Wemyss.

      Peter Reynolds does not agree with my position but he is wise enough not suggest I do not know the subject of cannabis or the drugs market generally. We both have a lot of knowledge but we come to differrent  perceptions of what policy should be in the public interest.

      Fair enough surely?

    • David Raynes

      Peter
      Were you actually AT the ACMD cannabis, public hearing? I do not recall seeing you there? Plenty of evidence was presented about cannabis harms. The call for reclassification upwards there, was led by the National Director of Mental Health, Professor Appleby.

      Even Steve Rolles of Transform, the main, UK based, normalisation/legalisation lobby group was moved to say during the hearing that “Cannabis is much more harmful than we thought”. 

      That was good enough endorsment of what I say surely? If one accepts that, the only debate is about the best public policy response.

      As for your glib dissmissal of all those I listed who have changed  their position. well, you would say that would you not?

      Thanks by the way for giving me a mention in Salford.

    • Anonymous

      No, I don’t think it is fair enough. I don’t believe you do know anything about cannabis or the drugs market because, if you did, you would not be able to argue for its continued prohibition.

      I believe that you have had your mind filled with lies and disinformation by the government and the Daily Mail, and haven’t bothered to find out the truth for yourself.

    • Anonymous

      ‘With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is the case with cannabis according to our opinion.’ 

      Angela (smoke up dude, it’s good for you)  Merkel, German chancellor 

           http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149 

      Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year – over 130,000 in total – are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking and eating the wrong things, a review reveals.Tobacco is the biggest culprit, causing 23% of cases in men and 15.6% in women, says the Cancer Research UK report.

      Science please, not opinion…

    • hannah

      Dear Mr Raynes
      As Political Affairs Director at the National Drug Prevention Alliance I am quite surprised you feel the need to comment on what I would imagine  you view as a “pot heads” site.You obviously feel that you are so right on the whole drugs debate and as such your opinion is as “set in concrete” as those you have criticised here.
      I note that you have given no direct citations of new scientific evidence to back up what is your own personal opinion.To be honest   personal opinions and changes in them are not “good enough”endorsements to statements that have no scientific evidence to back them up.
      You speak of a debate about the best public policy response.Surely this should be evidence based and allow for the fact that different groups of people have different ideaologies as to whether it is right to take substances that alters ones state of mind,and what substances are acceptable to take.
      At present we have an absurd situation whereby we have some very harmful substances(alcohol and tobacco)that the majority consider to be safe and legal.We have large numbers of people using them and a significant amount abusing them with devestating consequences to themselves and others.We have other scientifically proven less harmful substances such as Cannabis illegal.This is a sham considering the fact that alcohol and tobacco are killing thousands each year and yet cannabis, now proven to be a safe and effective medecine,is denied to thousands who have chronic, treatment resistant illnesses.
      I would say that it is high time we had an evidence based approach to the whole drugs debate and one that is not marred by fickle changes in political opinion and a lobby of people that seem to be on a quest to impose their own version of morality on everyone else.
      You seem to hold the ACMD in high regard and yet the sacking of Professor Nutt and the appointment and then removal of Dr Raabe has meant that, to some people,it has lost it’s respect as an independant and impartial body.
      Professor Nutt highlighted the absurdities in the drug classification strategy and called for reclassification of all drugs(including legal ones)based on evidence of their harms.
      The very fact that we are still having this debate shows that the “war on drugs”is not working and is certainly not protecting from criminality those it seeks to.
      CLEAR is not arguing for a “free for all” on cannabis.It is not saying it is totally harmless.It is campaigning for a regulated provision for it so that potential harms are minimized and those that may be vulnerable to harm from it i.e young adolescents are protected.A simplistic message of “just say no”is not working and never has.
      As part of the National Drug Prevention Alliance that argues for a “drug-free”society what actually is your definition of “drug-free”?
      Do you include alcohol and tobacco,maybe even sugar?Abuse of that has quite serious side-effects.
      My opinion is that “substance use” is embedded in to the human psyche.If you believe the bible and the story of Noah then you have to acknowledge that his first project on leaving the ark was to grow a vine,make wine and get drunk!A truly mind-altering state of consciousness!
      The problems associated with use of some substances are when they are abused.Angela Merkel seems to think this about alcohol and tobacco so why not about a substance that is scientifically proven to have a very low abuse potential?
      In my opinion substance abuse is a symptom of an underlying problem and not caused by the substance itself.Maybe if our politicians weren’t running around like money junkies they would seriously tackle some of societies problems that cause it-Child Abuse being number one.
      I’m glad that you felt that you could make commemts on what Peter Reynolds has published on CLEARs website.The fact that he allows people to challenge him tells me that he is not telling lies.I notice that your NDPA site does not!
      Regards Hannah.   

    • Cshaws

      Hi Hannah

      I’ve just looked at the NDPA website after you mentioning it.  There are some incredible claims on there seemingly backed up by ‘a study found that….  ”  but very few if any references to these studies. And , of course, no place for comments.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      No David I wasn’t at the ACMD meeting.  What you seem to overlook entirely is that its conclusion was that cannabis should not be upgraded to class B and that the criminal justice system is not an effective method of mitigating any harms.

      I’m afraid I’ve seen more than enough from self-serving mental health organisations and the drug support industry to prove to me conclusively that they mythologise and dissemble deliberately to exaggerate and benefit themselves financially.

      See Anne Milton’s parliamentary answer from yesterday which puts the matter into proper proportion:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-12-06a.84740.h&s=cannabis

    • M. osborne.

       David. What policy should be in the public interest his, yours, hers, mine? God denied access to two trees, tree of knowledge,tree of life,Gen 2:17. Gen 3:22-24.The Devil (meaning liar) decieved the first human’s and his still here.The Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act 1993 was passed so the indians could lawfully again use peyotoe cactus, a hallucogen.Most indians where alcohol-intolerant, it destroyed their society(wikipedia)just like it does every where today.Cannabis is a medecine to me and spiritual aid and no where in Gods law(first 5 books of bible)is cannabis denied.”It is no use for them to worship me because they teach laws of men as if they were laws of God”Matthew15:9.I have enndocannabinoid deficiency,complex P.T.S.D. and fibromyalgia I believe it is my God-given right to use cannabis both medically and spiritually and I am prepared to stand up for my rights and so are many others!Including non-users like my wife Hannah.Are you going to put us all in prison?What a waste of more money that would be.Prohibition will soon be OBSOLETE.  

      0

    • Hannah

      Hi Cshaws,you might like to check out David Raynes on knowdrugs.net.There is an interesting interview with him.Surprise surprise he’s ex-customs and excise and a moderare drinker!

    • http://twitter.com/williamjtruesda william j truesdale

      your right on the money derek the whole thing is a joke