Monday, May 9, 2011 - Peter Reynolds

Email To David Burrowes MP, 9th May 2011

David Burrowes, Conservative member for Enfield, Southgate, referring to the medicinal use of cannabis, said in the House today:

“That is not the most significant medical issue in relation to cannabis. In its higher form in particular, there are significant risks to young people, such as the probable causal link to mental illness, especially psychosis and schizophrenia. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to take a tough line and ensure effective enforcement of the law on possession of cannabis?”

My email in response:

From: Peter Reynolds
To: david@davidburrowes.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:21 PM
Subject: Cannabis

Dear Mr Burrows,

Regarding your intervention concerning cannabis in the House this afternoon.

You said there is a “probable causal link” between cannabis and psychosis. This is inaccurate and misleading. It’s a part of a political idea that is now discredited and failing.

All the experts agree that while cannabis use is a risk factor for psychosis, there is no proof at all that it causes it. The real distortion of the truth is to overlook that cannabis is much less of a risk factor than alcohol, tobacco or even energy drinks. Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD, is on the record that cannabis is one of the “safer recreational drugs”. In comparative terms there is no truth or justification at all in the argument you presented in the House.

Professor Glyn Lewis, universally regarded as the pre-eminent expert in analysis of all the published research said only a few weeks ago that: “it is important to note that we cannot be certain that there is a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis…96% of people can use it without any risk”.

The problem with cannabis is that it’s illegal. Prohibition creates massive harms and denies the extraordinary medicinal benefits of the plant to millions of British citizens. It also prevents proper education and treatment for those who are at risk. Authoritative new research now proves that a tax and regulate regime would boost the UK economy by at least £6 billion per annum and reduce all health and social harms.

I appreciate that you have been fed a very different story, as have so many but the evidence is now indisputable. Continuing on our present path costs us billions and causes far more harm than good. The progressive, intelligent, pragmatic and inevitable policy is to tax and regulate.

Please could I arrange to meet with you at your convenience to present the evidence to you? Next year, at least one state in the US is going to legalise, then common sense will roll out across the wold. This is the leading edge of policy.

I am the leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR). I am attaching a copy of our leaflet on medicinal cannabis which is now going into nationwide distribution. I hope you will agree to meet me soon.

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

PDF

http://www.facebook.com/cannajan Janice Wells

Clear and to the point as always!
teng

i hope such activism on liberation of hemp would ever occure in the filipines! there are plenty of people here believing of the wisdom weed we need youre help!! ty
Mishal Patel

nice response – I cannot understand why Mr Burrows fails to see that medicinal marijuana and recreational use of the drug are separate issues. It is not inconsistent to allow medicinal use alone, in which case the supposed concern over young people’s mental stability is irrelevant. Another example of political spin.
Dan Ford

I sent a back-up email to him, and in the standard “Thank you for your email” response that bounced back he states that he can be met at his regular ‘surgeries’. So if he refuses to make a special meeting to discuss this with you Peter, maybe you could go along to one of his surguries?
Anonymous

Those will be for his constituents Dan. Let’s see if I even get a response.
Darryl

No, this is entirely the problem with this soft approach – the notion of differentiating between a legitmate ‘medical use’ and by implication, an illigitmate recreational use is completely ill-conceived and meaningless. This is the problem with this campaign. Saying the problem with cannabis is that it’s illegal is completely incorrect and plays right into the hands of idiots like Burrows.
Steve Langford

Good letter, good to see you jump on his fictional statement so quickly.
Mishal Patel

It’s the smart approach – change comes about in stages and medicinal marijuana is the first of those. When a politician is asked a question about medicinal marijuana, they should not be permitted to talk about potential risks to young people. The NHS advises not to give aspirin to under 16s thereby acknowledging the risks and acting accordingly.
Mary Brett

Mary Brett

If there are any ingredients in marijuana that are medically beneficial, then they can be extracted, purified and clinically tested as is the law with all licensed medicines. Nabilone (synthetic THC UK), Marinol (synthetic THC USA) and recently Sativex (THC +CBD) are examples. Marijuana contains around 400 different substances, carcinogens among them. Would a doctor ever advise a patient to eat mouldy bread to get their penicillin? I think not!

A cannabis-using American lawyer, said in 1979, “We will use the medical marijuana argument as a red herring on the road to full legalisation”. That is when it started and the campaign still runs. They don’t want medicine, they want their joints. Richie Cowan his successor at NORML (National organisation for The Reform of the Marijuana Laws) said, “Medical marijuana is our strongest suit. It is our point of leverage which will move us towards the legalisation of marijuana for personal use”.

It would take around 6 joints a day to reduce the pressure in the eyes caused by glaucoma, one of the conditions often mentioned in this respect (Professor Keith Green, Georgia). Permanently stoned, they would hardly be effective citizens.
http://www.eurad.net Grainne Kenny

There is nothing so dangerous as misinformation. I was indeed shocked at Mr Reynolds response . Now I understand that he has a CLEAR agenda. My question is who will pick up the bill for the costs involved for treating new patients affilicted by the toxic effects of this narcotic drug. The tax payer will of course not CLEAR. As a therapist of many years experience I would strongly warn against promoting the use of yet another drug to join the legal ones i.le. alcohol and tobacco. We already know the damage caused by them and we have learned that being legal they are the most widely used and abused of all the drugs precisely because they are legal. I wish you well Mr Reynolds. I also wish all of those already damaged by this narcotic/psychotropic drug equally well.
Mishal Patel

”

There is nothing so dangerous as misinformation.” I hope the irony of this statement is not lost.

Which toxic effects are you referring to?

Would you prohibit the use of alcohol and tobacco since “they are the most widely used and abused” or are you simply against legal reform?
Mishal Patel

”
Would a doctor ever advise a patient to eat mouldy bread to get their penicillin?” I believe you are forgetting that licensed medicines also have side effects. You said yourself that marijuana contains hundreds of different substances, a combination of which provide the proven medical benefits to many patients. Pharmaceuticals are profit-seeking organisations offering, in the case of marijuana, an unnecessary step in the provision of medicine to patients. Until they develop a drug which is proven to be far more effective than the natural herb, they ought not to be part of the discussion. You should know that there methods of administering the drug without combustion so as to avoid inhalation of harmful smoke.

“Permanently stoned, they would hardly be effective citizenships.” This is a horrific statement. Medicine is the practice of improving people’s health and quality of life, regardless of of their efficacy as citizens.
Anonymous

So what is your point Ms Brett? Your prohibitionist views are well known and represent a deeply prejudiced, misinformed and bigoted section of society that refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence of cannabis as an incomparably effective and safe medicine. It is also, as Professor Les Iversen, the government’s chief drugs advisor says, one of “the safer recreational drugs”. By an analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis, 2953 times safer than alcohol.

The reductionist approach to medicine that you suggest overlooks all the studies that show the most beneficial effect of cannabis is from the whole plant and not from individual cannabinoids. Sativex, the only currently approved form of cannabis, being a case in point.

Welcome to the CLEAR website. I am sure you will learn a lot here to correct some of the fasle information and propaganda you have been associated with in the past.
Anonymous

You talk of misinformation and then you use the words “toxic” and “narcotic” to describe cannabis? These are factually inaccurate terms. Cannabis is not a narcotic and to quote DEA Judge Francis Young, it is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man…with a therapeutic ratio of between 1:20000 and 1:40000….less toxic than raw potatoes”
Jason Reed

Mary Brett,
Thank you for the comments. If cannabis had no medicinal value as you profess, why do we have mimicking drugs such as they ones you mention and a growing body of synthetic or cannabis derived medications? Does this not render your arguments fully redundant given the obvious oxymoron?Jason.
http://www.facebook.com/cbovey Chris Bovey

Grainne Kenny says there is nothing so dangerous as misinformation and then proceeds to write some. Not only is cannabis definitely not toxic it has huge medical benefits that are currently denied to people in pain in part because of the lies and misinformation spread by supporters of the failed policies of prohibition.

Far from costing the tax payer money, if cannabis were taxed and regulated it would raise the billions in taxation and save further billions by eliminating the cost of policing these daft laws.
Ed

Hello Mary!

I find your analogies rather crude and simplistic, I sincerely hope you teach your boys to a higher standard than you write on cannabis.

Peter is correct about Sativex, it is a simple carbon dioxide extraction of cannabis (and all it’s constituent cannabinoids and terpinoids) added to some alcohol and peppermint oil.

Marinol is heavily criticised as having side effects not found in natural THC.

The analogy between medical cannabis and mouldy bread for penicillin is frankly off the wall as it is well known that consuming impure penicillin produced in such a manner carries a substantial risk of death. No such risk exists with naturally grown cannabis. If this distinction escapes you you’ll find it very difficult convincing anyone here, our readers are well accustomed to prohibitionist chop logic and its rabid proponents.

Your second paragraph is lacking any kind of serious point. Cannabis is known to be a remarkably safe recreational drug, as attested to by Professors Roger Pertwee and David Nutt, two well established researchers frankly well above your pay grade.

Your final paragraph is again lacking in a point. Regardless of the source of THC used, natural or pharmaceutical, a sufficient amount of THC to reduce ocular pressure would cause a “high”. This in no way detracts from the usefulness of cannabis as a medicine for those who need it. Do you also campaign against the use of prescription opiates, known to produce a euphoric effect?

Some amusing reading for you:

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/mary-brett-a-cause-for-concern/

Personally I find the man’s style a little adolescent, but his point is spot on, your “work” on cannabis is nothing more than misinformation and propaganda and will fall on deaf ears here.

Enjoy your stay, you might just learn something if you open your mind.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659717857 Julian Pursell

Dear Mary,

You mention Sativex which contains whole Marijuana.

What alarms me is your statement that Marijuana contains carcinogens, so Sativex must also contain carcinogens, according to the information you give us.

Can you please give more information on the carcinogens in Marijuana.

I will be asking the same question of my friends at GW Pharmaceutical, I will of course indicate you as the source of this worrying rumour.

Without ill-will, frivolity, or neglect,

Julian
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659717857 Julian Pursell

If you ban tobacco, have you got any idea how that would impact on people with schizophrenia?
Taxilady65

good letter lets hope they act on it
Jason Reed

Grainne Kenny,

How does prohibition and the criminalisation of persons aid in the protection and safeguarding of the people you speak of? Surely, as a therapist, you would be understanding of creating a safe environment to treat people for related harms? As it stands, your specific work would be hindered by the fear of law and reprisal.

Secondly, there are no such things as legal and illegal drugs. We have controlled and non controlled by the letter of the law and the MoDA1971. Cannabis is controlled in essence, but this is not the case under prohibition. Related harms are exponentially greater under prohibition given the control fully rests with street law.

Under current laws, alcohol is not a controlled substance, this gives rise to a free market and why we have a problem in this area. We wish for age checks to at least hinder the consumption and purchasing of cannabis from minors, and a quality control system that will go some way in imparting the correct balance of cannabinoids. CBD is considered a neuro protector, Under prohibition, this component is being harvested out simply to make money based on weight. Not to mention the influx of adulterants; glass, metal, harder drugs for false potencies – do we not wish to protect from this new menace?

The current law and control methods account directly for the state of play that we’re now in with regards to the youth and cannabis, I ponder why you resist a change so fervently given this collation?
Craigashby

dear mary, sobriety is a chemically induced state of being that some find intolerable. when you come off your choice of cloud long enough to be able to make a coherent point then i’ll respond in kind. until such time, wibblebibblebrrrrrrrrrrrwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Dan Ford

The idea of people who use medical cannabis being permanently stoned is a real red herring. I use cannabis to control muscle spasms. I find that having some in the evening before retiring is quite sufficient, the therapeutic effect lasts all the next day, and so I am completely clear headed when I need to be, happy in the evenings and able to get a good nights sleep instead of the insomnia I suffer without the medication. What is your problem with this Mary???
http://www.facebook.com/cbovey Chris Bovey

Our new found friends Grainne Kenny and Mary Brett represent an organisation called Europe Against Drugs. Their web site contains a host of hysterical nonsense, misinformation and downright lies.

They too have a comments section at the foot of articles for you to leave your thoughts, however, unlike the good folk here at CLEAR, it seems if
you offer an alternative point of view, it is very quickly deleted. They have so little faith in their arguments they have to censor their critics.

I left the following comment here at
http://www.eurad.net/en/news/cannabis/Against+Medical+Marijuana.9UFRnS5O.ips

“Utter nonsense. Sativex, which is an expensive extract of cannabis licensed in Britain contains the same active ingredients as cannabis. I have a friend who has had MS for 23 years; when doctors scanned his brain they saw such large holes they couldn’t believe he could still walk. He told them he had been smoking large amounts of cannabis for 20 years, their reply, keep doing it. The lies and misinformation put out by your highly dubious organisation is preventing people in pain access to the only medicine they know that alleviates their suffering.”

Yet within minutes my comment was removed by the moderators at EURAD. Funny how they are happy to post their rubbish on the web site of CLEAR, yet do not allow free speech on their own web site. Of course their comments on this site will not be deleted by CLEAR, as their arguments are easily refuted. Perhaps Grainne Kenny or Mary Brett would like to take part in a public debate with Peter Reynolds about the issue of cannabis? I will personally sponsor it! Without a doubt they will decline, as they know Peter would comprehensively demolish them. The fact they delete any opposing viewpoint on their web site demonstrates they have no confidence to defend the validity of what they say.
slippery

Mary,

you say that a good reason to keep up prohibition on cannabis is because it causes cancer. Does chemotherapy cause cancer, and does radiotherapy cause cancer? How much does a corse of chemo or radiotherapy cost ?

Tell us straight up where you are coming from, it’s certainly nothing to do with health, do you perhaps hold shares in some companies that benefit from this cruel and inhuman corporate drug pushing?
Anonymous

I would be delighted to take part in a debate with Ms Kenny, Ms Brett or, indeed, both ladies.

I am prepared to travel at their convenience at my own expense and they may choose pistols, swords or any appropriate weapon. I arm myself with facts, evidence and truth.
John Ellis

So for a substance to have medical benefits it must also have a shareholder value? As the only people that will be able to work with such compounds are the Pharmaceutical companies . Much as this rubbish about mental health I’m 41 and use cannabis for my mental health. Whilst you are demonising cannabis as dangerous to both our children and our communities you should look at anti depressants all of which alter the CB receptor functioning of the brain. Prozac makes CB receptors but does not provide the endocannabinoids to drive the receptors and SSRIs lower AEA levels. Not to mention the effects these chemicals have across the rest of the ECSN.

Permanently stoned with no cut off effective citizens all taking prescribed drugs morphine codeine
few psychotropic
antidepressants thrown in makes good citizens.. “your logic is flawed at every level, if we legalise (not decriminalise) recreational cannabis then we can have medical cannabis” (s
aid by me a 10 year campaign
for cannabis legislation and mirrored law on consumption via legal means as the tobacco
and alcohol industries work)
http://www.facebook.com/people/Twr-Earle/1072819627 Twr Earle

It says it all when representatives from Europe Against Drugs are permitted to post their prohibitionist views on the web site of Cannabis Law Reform, yet they do not allow us to post on their web site.
http://twitter.com/andersulstein Anders Ulstein

@facebook-1009653476:disqus EURAD welcomes comments on our web pages. Abuse etc not. Our web page is new and we had some technical problems with manageing the comments. It will be done today.

On population level cannabis is major issue because of the large numbers seeking treatment and because of its relationship with other substance misuse. Seeking to find causality in the scientific sense is difficult in social sciences but it have not and should not hinder us from addressing correlated risk factors.

Many, probably most problem drug users are somehow predisposed, either biologically, socially or psychologically. Reducing availability for this significant group is therefore a priority in public health.

In addition, just being young, meaning in biological, social, psychological development constitutes a vulnerability of its own. I have seen no plausible plan – actually no plan at all – for what a liberalization and/or regulation of drugs will do to protect the young.

EURAD is a group consisting in part of recovered addicts and parents and support groups. These are or have been at the epicentre of the drug problem. http://www.eurad.net
http://www.facebook.com/johnnerush John Nerush

It saddens me to think that you really beleive what you are saying Mary. Please come and explain to my partner why you feel she dosnt deserve to use the medicine that best treats her illness (cannabis in herbal form) because I certainly am not going to tell her.

I get to see her on really bad days, where I have to help her put trousers on because the pain of moving is so bad she cant even get out of bed without me to lift her.

She cannot work fulltime, she could not secure a part time job of more than an hour or two a day because she cannot guarentee that she will be able to turn up, this is without smoking cannabis. This is not an uncommon senario and to be fair she has a relativly mild illness (while still serious) compaired to some people.
http://twitter.com/EURADnews Europe against Drugs

@facebook-1009653476:disqus EURAD welcomes comments on our web pages. Abuse etc not. Our web page is new and we had some technical problems with manageing the comments. It will be done today.
On population level cannabis is major issue because of the large numbers seeking treatment and because of its relationship with other substance misuse. Seeking to find causality in the scientific sense is difficult in social sciences but it have not and should not hinder us from addressing correlated risk factors.
Many, probably most problem drug users are somehow predisposed, either biologically, socially or psychologically. Reducing availability for this significant group is therefore a priority in public health.
In addition, just being young, meaning in biological, social, psychological development constitutes a vulnerability of its own. I have seen no plausible plan – actually no plan at all – for what a liberalization and/or regulation of drugs will do to protect the young.
EURAD is a group consisting in part of recovered addicts, parents and support groups. These are or have been at the epicentre of the drug problem.
What is typical for our affiliates and I think most people familiar with problem drug use is that, yes drugs are different in terms of effects and harm, but essentially they are integrated and equal parts of the same problem.
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

Mr Ulstein, Perhaps you could clarify:

”… cannabis is major issue because of the large numbers seeking treatment”

What numbers? There are the relatively trivial matters of panic attacks and simply being overstoned. Perhaps hundreds of thousands have similar issues with alcohol every day. There are huge numbers encouraged by the drug support industry and inveigled into claiming a problem as mitigation in the face of criminal justice sanctions. Then there is a tiny number of individuals who do experience some sort of allergic reation to cannabis (far fewer than are allergic to peanuts, for example).

“…other substance misuse.”

You use the term “misuse”. Do you accept that there is also use that is not “misuse”.

“…what a liberalization and/or regulation of drugs will do to protect the young.”

The Transform Drug Policy Foundation has published comprehensive proposals for the regulation of all drugs. I am certain you must be aware of them. However, the blindingly simple but massively effective change from regulation of cannabis will be that it will be subject to age restrictions simliar to cigarettes or alcohol. Of course, this won’t eliminate under age use but it will drastically curtail it and as a substance with far less potential for harm than either alcohol or tobacco, this is an important step forward.
Slippery Mark

@ Anders, one of the outcomes of regulation and legalisation, is that education on Cannabis will have to change from the current suspicion to telling the truth when it becomes clear that psychosis isn’t destroying our population
http://www.facebook.com/cbovey Chris Bovey

Following the highlighting of Europe Against Drugs hypocrisy at posting on here while remove opposing views on their web site , my comment, which was removed, has now been put back up. I hope lots of people take advantage of their comments page to offer counterarguments to the failed policies of prohibition.
http://www.facebook.com/cbovey Chris Bovey

Exactly Peter, that’s why they have lower usage of cannabis amongst
under 18s in The Netherlands than they do in the UK, precisely because
cannabis is sold by licensed coffeeshops who face strict sanctions if
they are caught selling to minors.

Mr Ulstein, I made a comment
making just that point in response to your reply on your web site, but
it disappeared again, are you still having technical difficulties? Or
will my comment re-appear again?

Also, now that Peter Reynolds
has confirmed he would be delighted to take part in a public debate with
a member(s) from your organisation, can you confirm or not if a
representative from Europe Against Drugs would be prepared to take part
in a public debate with Peter Reynolds of the Cannabis Law Reform party
on the issue of the whether the sale of cannabis should be regulated?

Email To David Burrowes MP, 9th May 2011

Categories

CLEAR on Facebook

TOKEpure on Facebook