Given the accelerating pace of change in the USA, imminent radical change in Latin America and the fact that Britain now has one of the most backward drugs policies in the world, what can we do to advance the cause of cannabis law reform?

Peter Reynolds

Cannabis is, of course, the big drugs policy issue although it is generally lumped in with discussion about addictive, dangerous drugs and consequently little rational debate takes place.  It is self-evident that our 300,000 problematic users of opiates and crack would be better dealt with as patients rather than criminals. It would stop them perpetrating 70% of all acquisitive crime.

It is equally self-evident that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis, MDMA and other relatively harmless substances would reduce harm, protect children and make a huge contribution to our economy. This, however, wouldn’t suit the alcohol industry which as it spends £800 million on advertising each year brings us back round in a self-reinforcing circle to the Fleet Street mafia, the real enemies of reform and progress in Britain on all political issues.

Then there’s the unlawful monopoly of medicinal cannabis granted to GW Pharmaceuticals which has been growing cannabis for commercial gain under an unlawful licence for 10 years (The Home Secretary retrospectively legalised it last month). The Home Office is engaged in a calculated deception falsely to distinguish Sativex from cannabis.

Propping up all this corruption up are weak, cowardly and dishonest politicians of all parties.

Successive British governments have caused more harm than good with their useless and incompetent drug policies for years. Even today they claim it’s all going so wonderfully well. Last week we had the appalling spectacle of the Liberal Democrat drugs minister, Jeremy Browne, saying he is “proud” of British drugs policy.  This despite the fact that he is presiding over a Tory drugs policy which is diametrically opposed to his own party’s.  Surely this is self-interest and career ambition trumping integrity yet again?  This seems to be standard practice for today’s career politicians.

The HASC drugs inquiry whimpered its way to supporting the momentum towards reform but it did so under the manipulation of arch-schemer Keith Vaz, who preferred the company of celebrities and extremist prohibitionist opinion to evidence and addressing real public concerns.  In the written submissions to the inquiry, one question dominated all others – the need for regulated access to medicinal cannabis.  The committee completely ignored this issue.  Only after the inquiry was over did Vaz pass the buck to the Department of Health which, in time honoured tradition, promptly passed it back to the Home Office.

The committee’s report, ‘Breaking The Cycle’, is to be debated on 6th June in parliament and I plan to be there, though I am not optimistic about any substantive result.

The cannabis campaign in Britain has made considerable progress in the last two or three years.  The relaunch of  the LCA as CLEAR started it all and support has become more widespread and organised ever since.  Many cannabis social clubs have been formed and there are new organisations, all working in a professional way to a far higher standard than before. This is all excellent news and although we don’t all see eye to eye, the fact is there is far more good work going on now than there was pre-2011.

No one can disagree with the high minded principle that ending cannabis prohibition is a human rights issue but blind and stubborn adherence to this idea obstructs reform.  Civil disobedience is counterproductive and sets cannabis users outside the mainstream which is where we need to be.  Colorado and Washington have not achieved reform because of protests and rallies but despite them. What has achieved change has been the patient, detailed drafting of bills, an organised campaign and lobbying of voters.  The people on the marches were always going to vote for reform.  Such events are merely preaching to the choir.

Pragmatism is what is needed.  Small steps in reducing penalties, minimising enforcement and educating public opinion must be the way forward.

Whatever we do in Britain will be as nothing compared to the effect of more states legalising in the US. For that reason I believe we need to be very focused on how we use our time and resources. General demands or appeals for change just fall on deaf ears. Marches and rallies achieve nothing. We need to engage with government and policy makers. That is how we can promote change.

I believe the Sativex issue has the potential to gain most traction here. That the government has now re-scheduled it to schedule 4 while continuing to claim that cannabis has ‘no medicinal value‘ is revealing its present policy to be completely absurd. As you may have read, we have secured an opportunity to take a delegation of 12 medicinal cannabis users to parliament to meet some senior figures in home affairs and health. This is really good progress and could make a big difference. The idea is to try and enable access to Bedrocan for medicinal users either by obtaining personal import licences or by enabling pharmacists to obtain licences to import and dispense.

As highlighted in the Sunday Times last week, CLEAR is by far the largest and most visible player in the British cannabis campaign.  We will make progress through initiatives such as the parliamentary delegation,  judicial reviews of Home Office decisions, educating public opinion and working with a number of police and crime commissioners who are interested in reform. We are also assembling a consortium of donors to fund a billboard advertising campaign.

The way forward is responsible engagement with those who can make change happen.  We must leave behind the association with badly behaved young people protesting by smoking joints in front of police officers, the videos that glorify intoxication, the mindless belief that we can ‘overgrow the government’ or if enough of us smoke a joint in public somehow we will prevail.

Last month we decided to restrict access to our website and Facebook page to adults only. Although we recognise that under 18s do use cannabis, it definitely works against the campaign for responsible law reform. The recent media coverage of Hyde Park 420 has produced something of a backlash and although, as usual, it was inaccurate and exaggerated, we must be clear that we advocate a system of regulation where only adults can have access to cannabis unless prescribed by a doctor.

Of course, the worry is that we are cutting off teenagers from access to reliable and trustworthy information about cannabis. We intend to set up a young people’s advice service and we’re planning how to do that within our resources.

Next weekend, the CLEAR executive committee meets to finalise a review of our policy and strategy and in September we will hold a conference for members.  My term of office as leader expires in February 2014 so before the end of this year there will be a leadership election.

Please become a member of CLEAR.  It only costs £10.00 per annum or £5.00 if you’re a student, a pensioner or on benefits.  It gives you the opportunity to influence policy and provides the funding we need to run the campaign.  It is the CLEAR way forward for those who wish to make a difference in cannabis law reform in Britain.

Which Way Forward For The British Cannabis Campaign? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

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

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

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

As Time reports

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

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

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

Whatever the case, marijuana research never lacks for surprises!

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

Cannabis linked to prevention of diabetes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diabetes.co.uk reports

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

The reports adds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two important points flow from this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————-

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

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

“…a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics.“ Police Regulations 2003, schedule 1

The Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has rejected my second complaint against the Commissioner of the Metropolis, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.  See here for details.

Remarkably, the line it has taken this time is that my complaint is “repetitive“.  It seems that as far as police misconduct goes, repeat offences don’t count.  Hogan-Howe engaged in politics about cannabis on two separate and distinct occasions but because I’ve already complained about the first, I can’t complain about the second!  The only things that the two occasions had in common was that the statements he made were equally misleading and both were clear breaches of Police Regulations.

I have therefore submitted a second appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Meanwhile, in Gravesend, Kent, a junior police officer has been up to the same thing.  Detective Constable Roger Harris came out with a statement Dr Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, would have been proud of:

“Cannabis use has a detrimental effect on its users and on society in general.”

Source: This is Local London

I have complained to the Kent Police professional standards department, making the following points:

More Police Misconduct On Cannabis. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

John W. Huffmann

John W. Huffman, the ‘JWH’ behind many synthetic cannabinoids, notably JWH-018, says we should consider legalising cannabis as a way to counter the problems with synthetic cannabinoids. “The synthetics are harmful, they’re dangerous,” he says, “and marijuana is not really dangerous.”

He has a doctor friend in California who was unaware of the synthetic compounds because in his state it’s so easy to get marijuana (medical marijuana is legal in California). “That’s what made me come to the conclusion that legalising marijuana is probably the best thing we could do – and tax it, so the government could make more money.”

Now 79 years old and retired, John W Huffman enjoys a quiet lifestyle in the mountains of North Carolina, with his wife, a university professor. He’s quick to laughter, self-deprecating at every turn, and he retains the sharp, analytical mind that helped him excel in a long and distinguished career as a research scientist.

Huffman invented or co-invented more than 450 chemical compounds that mimic the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. The compounds – which bear his initials – are the key ingredients in cannabis alternatives such as Kronic, K2 and Spice. Huffman, however, calls these compounds flat out dangerous.

“It’s like playing Russian roulette,” he says, “because you just don’t know what’s going to happen.”

He also doesn’t hide his contempt for the people who seek to make a profit from the likes of Spice.

“There are people on this earth who will do anything to make money, no matter what harm it does to other people,” he says. “These people are morally off base, completely.”

“These people, they know it is known that these things are harmful. These people are just like drug pushers who push cocaine and crystal meth and all the other nasty compounds.”

Huffman, who, in July, retired from his job as a professor of organic chemistry at South Carolina’s Clemson University and holds a PhD from Harvard, has been one of the few informed voices speaking out against the dangers of what are still largely unknown quantities. Only a small number of cannabinoid experts have stepped forward to educate the public on the ramifications of using the drugs.

That’s partly because there are few people qualified to speak about synthetic cannabinoids and little money to fund their work. In the US, Huffman is one of only “four or five” chemists who have made the compounds – three of whom are over 70 years old.

Huffman, who trained under Nobel Prize-winning chemist Professor Robert Burns Woodward, got involved in cannabinoid research in 1984, when he was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to synthesise THC carboxylic acid, which was used as a standard for checking marijuana use. At the time, the institute was paying US$50,000 a gram.

Later, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society, Huffman learned that NIDA wouldn’t fund synthetic organic chemistry – it would only fund drug development and receptor interactions (i.e. how compounds react with particular receptors in the brain). He had no experience in either field, but thought receptor interactions sounded more fun than drug development, and so, after three attempts, he managed to renew his grant. He became so interested in cannabinoid receptors that he worked in the field continuously until July this year.

Huffman’s research ultimately led to the development of more than 450 chemical compounds that “mimic THC and then some”. One of the most potent and easiest to make is JWH-018, which is 10 times as potent as THC and is the key ingredient in Spice.

“If you just look at the affinity for the receptor, this stuff is about 10 times as potent for the CB1 receptor as THC,” says Huffman. The brain’s CB1 receptor is linked to the central nervous system. In other words, JWH-018 is likely to be much more effective at getting you ‘high’ than plain old THC.

Huffman knows enough about the drugs to say bluntly: “These are dangerous compounds and should not be used.”

As a kind of unwilling figurehead for these synthetic compounds, he has had more than his fair share of feedback. He’s had a few people blame him for the development of the drugs – including in an unpleasant interview on Russian TV – but he’s actually had more people thank him for it. Wannabe manufacturers often email him expressing their admiration and asking for advice. He doesn’t answer them. The emails that make him most sad, however, are from parents whose teenage sons or daughters have used the drugs and suffered severe psychological problems.

“I never had a really good response to any of those,” he says. “There was one email I got from a woman whose nephew had smoked K2 or Spice and committed suicide. They are really, really nasty compounds.”

And he should know.  Real cannabis is safer.

This article was adapted from a piece by Hamish McKenzie, originally published on the website of the New Zealand Drug Foundation.

The Truth About ‘Spice’ And Cannabis Substitutes From The Man Who Invented Them. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

How can we create change?  What will make a difference?

Why can’t we make the sort of progress that has been seen in Washington and Colorado?

Cannabis prohibition is causing massive harm and waste in Britain.

Most other European countries have less strict policies.  We all know about Holland.  In Belgium you’re allowed to grow one plant.  In Italy you can ‘grow a few plants on your balcony‘.  In the Czech Republic you’re permitted to possess – without fear of prosecution – up to five grams of cannabis (and,  if you want to, 40 magic mushrooms, five peyote plants, five tabs of LSD, four hits of ecstasy, two grams of speed, one and a half grams of heroin, five coca plants and a gram of coke!)

What holds us back in Britain?

In fact, the campaign has made considerable progress in the last two or three years.  The relaunch of  the LCA as CLEAR started it all and support has become more widespread and organised ever since.  Many cannabis social clubs have been formed and there are new organisations, all working in a professional way to a far higher standard than before. This is all excellent news and although we don’t all see eye to eye, the fact is there is far more good work going on now than there was pre-2011.

Britain is a different and particularly difficult place to achieve  reform.  Partly it’s our media, particularly our newspapers, and we do tend to follow the  US more than the rest of Europe.  That’s why, whatever we do here, it will be as nothing compared to the effect of more states legalising in the US.  That’s what will ultimately change things here.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.  What it does mean is we have to be smart and very focused on what has a real effect  .

Colorado and Washington have achieved change because of local democracy and that’s why America will lead the way. Britain, the home of modern democracy, has sadly succumbed to the party whip system and to that ever present fear of and subjugation by the Fleet Street mafia.  The Daily Mail has run cannabis policy in Britain for the last 20 years.

The natural inclination is to protest but this is not what has worked.  Colorado and Washington have not succeeded because of large gatherings or marches. What has achieved change has been the patient, detailed drafting of bills, an organised campaign and lobbying of voters.  The people on the marches were always going to vote our way.  Such work is merely preaching to the choir.

Success has been achieved through concentrated, diligent and determined work, not through civil disobedience.

Today’s Global Marijuana March, Million Marijuana March or whatever else we call it is a token of our protest.  It’s cannabis! The whole world is waking up, once again, to the fact that prohibition is a great, immoral evil.

Save the children.  End prohibition.

What we need to do now is the work, the detail, the negotiation, the settlement. We are almost there.

How Can the Cannabis Campaign Succeed In Britain? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Prof. Les Iversen

Prof. Tim Kirkham

Dr Trevor Turner

Prof Glyn Lewis

Dr Clare Gerada

Prof. David Nutt

Prof Terrie Moffitt

What The Experts Say About Cannabis - 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

Existing users aged under 18 will be automatically deleted by Facebook.  We anticipate this will lose us around 6% of our ‘likes’ and take us back down below 20,000 in total.  Nevertheless, after careful consideration, the executive committee has agreed that this is the responsible action to take.

Visitors to the website will shortly be asked to confirm their date of birth.  This will be a one time only requirement and your computer will use cookies to remember your answer.

New Age Restrictions On CLEAR Facebook Page and Website - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Hyde Park, 20th April 2013

The Hyde Park 420 event on 20th April 2013 was not a success for the British cannabis campaign.  It may have been an enjoyable social event for some but its effect has been to associate the legitimate campaign for cannabis law reform with the spectacle of hundreds of children smoking weed in public.

This is not the way to advance our cause and those responsible for organising and promoting children and teenagers to participate have shot themselves in the foot.  Responsible adult users and particularly those who need cannabis as medicine have been seriously set back by this event.

It’s not surprising that the media coverage was largely negative.  Estimates of attendance range from a few hundred to 10,000.  Neither is true.  I don’t know but from the photographs and having attended other events in the same location I would guess at around 5,000.  That’s not the point though. What it has done is present the British cannabis campaign as irresponsible and juvenile.  That makes it all the more difficult to complain about the media stories and, more importantly, to achieve positive, supportive  coverage.

Nevertheless, CLEAR submitted formal complaints to the BBC about its website article and about Mary Brett’s appearance on Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz show.  We have also made a PCC complaint about the Daily Mail’s coverage.

Website complaint

This article is unbalanced and gives credence and space to wildly inaccurate, sensationalist and scaremongering comments from Mary Brett. No counterbalancing information is given.

Cannabis cannot by any scientific or medical evidence be described as ’dangerous’. It is a generally benign substance although it does offer some potential for harm, only if used by children. This is clearly shown by the vast amount of published, peer reviewed evidence on the subject. Compared to almost any other substance it is far, far safer – much safer than aspirin according to the government’s chief drugs advisor, Prof Leslie Iversen.

‘Skunk’ is a specific strain of cannabis. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the market, not 80%. It is the same substance as was around in the sixties and seventies and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

To describe any strain of cannabis as ‘horrific’ is absurd and has no basis in science, medicine or any evidence. That the BBC gives Ms Brett licence to distribute her false, misleading propaganda is a disgrace.

 Radio London complaint

The opportunity given to Mary Brett to advance a line of argument that is disproven by all published research was disgraceful.

Her casual use of the word skunk as a derogatory and scaremongering term was inaccurate and misleading. Skunk is a single strain of cannabis which accounts for a fraction of a percent of the cannabis used in the UK.

The THC percentage figures given by Ms Brett were inaccurate. The allegation that cannabis “dumbs the brain down” is false and has no basis in evidence. In fact, cannabis promotes neurogenesis in the hippocampus and has been used for millennia by artists and writers as an aid to creativity.

It was inaccurate to claim that all people in Hyde Park were teenagers. There were people of all ages, many of retirement age and many who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. There is no scientific basis for describing cannabis as dangerous. Compared to all other drugs, even aspirin, it is far less harmful. Evidence proves that in the UK alcohol is six times more likely to be associated with mental health problems than cannabis.

Ms Brett was also allowed to misrepresent two studies concerning the Lambeth cannabis experiment in the same way as recently published in the press which has been challenged by the authors of the studies and are subject to PCC complaints. It is absolutely false to state that more ‘kids’ are in treatment for cannabis than for alcohol. Ms Brett is a misguided promoter of false science and has no place on the BBC.

We have yet to receive a response concerning Radio London but Laura Ellis from the BBC News website has replied:

I have looked again at the story and I believe it is a balanced and factual account of the event – a mass gathering at which hundreds of people were breaking the law as it currently stands.

We feature a range of comments, including a tweet from the London Cannabis Club. There are also clear links to a picture gallery of the global marijuana march, which includes information about the potential medicinal aspect of cannabis, as well as an article with the headline ‘Cannabis makes pain more bearable’.

Best regards, and thanks for your feedback which is much appreciated.

We’re not leaving it there though!

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am dismayed at your response to my complaint which fails to address the issues I raised at all.

As for your suggestion that it is a “balanced” account of the event, that is preposterous and just does not stand up to analysis.

Your response and indeed the article itself is predicated on your description that it was “a mass gathering at which hundreds of people were breaking the law as it currently stands”.

Is that how you would have covered a protest about the ‘bedroom tax’ or changes to planning law? Of course not. You would have looked at the issues involved, not just resorted to prejudice and dismissal of widespread public concern about the injustice of the present laws against cannabis.

I am afraid that your response really shines a light on gross bias and distortion of this story in the BBC. A recent Ipsos MORI poll shows 53% of the British public want cannabis legalised or decriminalised: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/new-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-53-of-gb.html

What is truly appaling though, which you have completely overlooked and is in brazen defiance of the requirement on the BBC to be balanced is your unchallenged repetition of Mary Brett’s falsehood and misrepresentation of the scientific evidence about cannabis.

In my original complaint I referenced specific inaccuracies but you have simply ignored them. I am afraid your blandishments cut no ice. Such misleading, inaccurate and prejudiced coverage is what we expect from the Daily Mail but not from our national broadcaster which is paid for out of public money.

Please address my complaint properly. If you will not publish a prominent correction and apology and re-balance your coverage, I fully intend to take this to the Editorial Complaints Unit.

BBC Responds To CLEAR Complaints On Cannabis Coverage - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Mary Brett

Meet Mary Brett in person and she’s your granny. She’s a kindly lady whose motives are beyond doubt. As a biology teacher at a very posh boys grammar school in leafy Buckinghamshire she evidently cared deeply for the welfare of her pupils. Sadly, this genuine concern has turned her into a drug warrior and propagandist of the most dangerous kind. Using the vehicle of a registered charity, Cannabis Skunk Sense,  she is in the business of misinforming and scaremongering about cannabis.  By providing ‘secretarial services’ for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cannabis and Children she has managed to win influence in parliament. She is a key player in maintaining the present hugely damaging, costly and oppressive policy on cannabis.

Mary and her colleague Lucy Dawes have been busy this week, largely in response to the Hyde Park 420 event. They are, of course, the favourite source of a scary quote for the Daily Mail and they’ve been relentessly pushing the myth of ‘skunk’, the lie that cannabis is dangerous, even “horrific“.

At CLEAR we share her concern about the very large number of children seen smoking cannabis in Hyde Park but the way to deal with this is not to threaten them with jail and frighten them with bad science. They’re clever and well informed enough to know when they hear propaganda. The trouble is that makes them dismiss any health warnings about cannabis and for young people it is important to be careful.

Cannabis Skunk Sense is the charity of which Ms Brett is founder and trustee. There’s a technical term for the way in which her charity operates and that is that it’s a ‘sham’. It’s not genuine because charities are prohibited from taking part in politics and that’s exactly what Cannabis Skunk Sense does.  It campaigns ruthlessly with bad and discredited science and whips up fear and hatred of cannabis users with inflammatory speakers such as Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. MPs are misinformed, misled and blinded with bad science.

Mary is wedded to the discredited COMT gene theory, disproven many times over, that suggests 25% of those who use cannabis will become psychotic. It is the work of Professor Sir Robin Murray who, despite his titles, is notorious for unscientific language and is disgraced by his propaganda around the term ‘skunk’. He even purports to have authored scientific studies on the subject but when you actually read them they’re about ‘high potency cannabis’ with widely varying THC content, no controls and very little scientific rigour. They have nothing to do with the indica dominant strain of skunk which represents a tiny proportion of the cannabis available in Britain. It’s a term deliberately intended to cause fear and panic amongst the uninformed and that, of course, is the reason that it’s used in the title of Mary’s campaign group.

One day, those that have been misled by Mary and her colleagues will realise that the only effective way to reduce the harms around cannabis is to take the market out of the hands of criminals and introduce responsible regulation to ensure quality, balanced cannabinoid content and age restrictions on sales. That Britain has one of the lowest ages at first use of cannabis in the world is the best indicator of what a disastrous policy we follow. Mary would have us move even further in that direction. This is why she’s dangerous, dangerous to our children, our society and to truth.

Cannabis Skunk Sense: Publisher of Bad Science And Non-Sense - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

In order to protect patient confidentiality and against the sort of sabotage which is so often seen in the cannabis campaign, we are not releasing details of who we are meeting or when.  Suffice to say that this breakthrough has been achieved by many months of behind the scenes work, meetings with MPs, doctors and the courageous efforts of several CLEAR members.

The focus is to permit medicinal users access to the products of Bedrocan, the Dutch government’s official producer of medicinal cannabis.  We now have written confirmation from both the Department of Health and the Home Office that doctors are fully entitled to write prescriptions for Bedrocan products, just as they are for any other unlicensed medicine.

The next stage is to obtain an import licence from the Home Office, either a personal import licence for each individual or a licence for a pharmacist to import and dispense.  The recent re-scheduling of Sativex makes our case for obtaining these licences much stronger.

We are not there yet but we are now closer than we have ever been to enabling legal access to medicinal cannabis.  The delegation will be meeting face to face with people who can make this happen.

We now have to select the members of the delegation.  This is an important task.  We need a broad range of conditions for which there is good evidence that cannabis helps.  We also need the right people who can put their case across in a polite and convincing manner.

We also have a BBC documentary producer with whom we have been working for a few months concerning a programme to be broadcast in the autumn.  This visit to parliament could form an important part of the programme.

If you are interested in being considered as a member of the delegation, please email me with a concise description of yourself, your condition and your history of medicinal cannabis use: peterreynolds@clear-uk.org

Medicinal Cannabis Users – Parliamentary Delegation - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dr Gary Potter

The claim concerned statements published on the GCCRC website by Chris Bovey, Alun Buffry and others involved in the campaign of hatred and abuse against CLEAR and its members. Dr Potter has published an apology on the GCCRC website which describes the statements as “derogatory“, “without evidence” and “defamatory“.

The apology can be seen in full here.

Further terms of the settlement are confidential.

Peter Reynolds, leader of CLEAR, said:

“This is the first victory in the fight back against the smear campaign directed at CLEAR.  Legal action continues against others involved. I’m really proud of the way that my colleagues on the executive and our members have stayed true in the face of the most disgusting lies and false allegations. Throughout some very difficult times, we have remained focused on our efforts to end the prohibition of cannabis, most urgently for those who need it as medicine.”

Dr Gary Potter Of London South Bank University Apologises To CLEAR. - 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

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. Drug War Politician.

Not content with calling my first complaint ‘fanciful‘ when I presented documentary evidence of misconduct  by Britain’s most senior police office, the Mayor’s office has now tried to suppress my further complaint of a repeat offence.

In normal circumstances, once a complaint has been submitted,  it is proper to regard its progress as confidential until a final determination is made.  However, there is clearly an intention here not to deal with my legitimate complaints seriously.  So, until the Mayor’s office starts behaving responsibly and properly investigating the overwhelming evidence of misconduct I have presented, we will continue this in public.

See the first complaint here.

See the second complaint here.

Dear Mr Reynolds,

Mayor’s Office Attempts Cover-Up Of Hogan-Howe Misconduct. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party