Peter Hitchens Runs From the Cure

    Peter Hitchens and I are squarely on opposite sides of the debate about cannabis.  This year I’ve attended several events at which he and I have clashed in more or less good humour – although he did get upset with me at King’s College London in March when I mentioned his brother’s advocacy for medical marijuana.

    I’ve also made several Press Complaints Commission complaints this year about Mr Hitchens and his column.  To be fair not one of them has been upheld although nowadays that might be seen as a badge of honour. To have the PCC uphold a complaint might be seen as the greatest wound I could suffer to my integrity.

    In the last week or two Mr H has been pontificating in particularly high dudgeon on his Mail on Sunday blog.  I’ve left a number of comments, none of which have been published so when Jason Reed published a critique on his HomeGrown Outlaw blog, I referred to my unpublished offerings.  Mr H himself then commented stating that my comments had been mysteriously trapped in his SPAM filter.  He says that “I know where to get him” if it happens again – but unfortunately I don’t.

    So I tried again and again and again but to no avail.  Yesterday Mr H stepped right into my patch and wrote that “…the concept of medicinal cannabis…is wicked propaganda…”.   I had to try again but it’s hardly a surprise that my comment has not been published.  In fact I’ve even tried under different names and from different email addresses but strangely my contributions are never allowed!

    Mr H is not getting it all his own way though.  Many and eloquent are my comrades in arms who have taken him to task and called him to account for his gibberish.  Mentions in dispatches are due to Ed Benton, Sanj Chowdhary, Stephen Langford and Mr Bimble.  There are others doing an excellent job of exposing Mr H and his pompous buffoonery.   Perhaps I should be flattered that he will not allow me to join in?

    All is not lost though for it seems that in October the University of Salford is to run a debate on cannabis in which Mr H and I will oppose each other directly.  I am told he has accepted the challenge.  Let us hope that he sticks with it and does not get trapped in his own SPAM filter on the way.

    And the very latest is this astounding, offensive and just plain rude diatribe against cannabis campaigners.

    “…the general characterisation of pro-cannabis campaigners as selfish and wicked is a simple statement of fact. They are selfish, placing their own pleasure above the good of others. And they are wicked, in that they are happy to expose others to the dangers of lifelong mental illness, to make their own pleasure more accessible. “

    Mr H’s latest offering is “The ‘Red Herring’ of Medicinal Cannabis.

    This is my unpublished comment, trapped, writhing and struggling in his SPAM filter:

    “Mr Hitchens, what a tangled web you weave although, I grant you, I do not think you mean to deceive.  I think you are simply wrong, honestly wrong but blatantly wrong. When you describe medicinal cannabis as “wicked propaganda” you move from simply making a mistake into cruel persecution of those who need cannabis as medicine.

    I attempted just recently to enlighten you a little on the subject of the endocannabinoid system.  The bizarre moderation procedures of your website rejected my comment on several occasions. Although I understand you have now published it, the moment was past – but I knew it would return.  This comment is in two parts in order that it fits within your 500 word limit.

    The endocannabinoid system was only discovered in 1988 but is now known to be fundamental to all aspects of life. The central nervous system, the immune system, cardiovascular system, reproductive system, gastrointestinal and urinary tracts all contain cannabinoid receptors and are regulated by cannabinoids.

    There are only two sources of cannabinoids available outside the body.  One is mother’s milk, which is packed full of cannabinoids, essential as they are to the nourishment and development of new life. The second is the cannabis plant.

    This is absolute proof of the importance of cannabis as medicine.

    Mankind has used cannabis safely and effectively for 5000 years. Only in the last 100 years or so has the experiment of prohibition stood in the way. It is no surprise then at the joy with which its popular rediscovery in the 1960s was greeted. We know naturally that cannabis is good for us. It nurtures and nourishes us on physical, mental and spiritual levels.

    There are more evident misunderstandings or gaps in your knowledge about cannabis.  THC is only one of approximately 100 cannabinoids that occur naturally in the plant.  Sativex, which you mention, contrary to the misinformation promulgated by its maker, contains all these cannabinoids and works very effectively for many conditions.  Nabilone, which is synthesised THC, is, as you say, not a very successful medicine, precisely because it is an isolated cannabinoid.  All the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the efficacy of medicinal cannabis rely on the complex interaction of many cannabinoids to produce effects which have been proven over thousands of years to be both effective and safe.

    I have used cannabis recreationally for nearly forty years, nearly every day of my life and all it has ever done me is good.  I recognise that as a psychoactive substance it has the potential for harm and certainly, for some people, it may be a very bad thing – just as in approximately 3000 cases every year, people are admitted to hospital for an allergic reaction to peanuts.  However, the thing that drives my passion to campaign for its proper appreciation is the evidence that I have seen with my own eyes of its extraordinary medicinal value.

    Cannabis literally transforms the lives of many people afflicted with the most dreadful and debilitating of diseases.  It releases them from pain, suffering and disability to be able to lead full and productive lives.  As I have already mentioned, there are now hundreds of peer reviewed, scientific studies which confirm this.

    Your quibbles and quarrels with your commenters are of little interest.  However, if you were properly to acquaint yourself with the evidence for medicinal cannabis, I think you would change your tune.  You are a clever and intelligent man Mr Hitchens.  Please apply those qualities to this subject and put aside your prejudice.  When you do, I know you will be glad that you did.”



    • Marcusroberts666

      Your contributions to his columns are not allowed because they are not in favour of his opinions, which are wrong, “wicked propaganda” that’s what is wrong with the current information on cannabis, this man clearly does not care about the medical value of cannabis or any other values. The only one he cares about is his reputation, which in my eyes is a poor excuse of a human being. He’s deyning you to comment on any of his documents, because you are right, otherwise he would let you write on them and then come back with an argument, which he cant because hes wrong. He just needs to admit this.

    • SanjC

      As ever a fantastic article Peter, it is a crying shame that Peter won’t pick up the gauntlet you have placed at his feet time and time again (well not on his own Mail page anyway) Keep me posted about the Salford debate. I live around 20 miles from there and am more than happy to do any promoting and canvasing (or should that be cannabising?) before hand! I could also get a crowd down if needed, but from what I remember of my visits to Salford Uni, you should be fighting on home ground!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/ThomasJamesCantwell Thomas Cantwell

      “the general characterisation of pro-cannabis campaigners as selfish and wicked is a simple statement of fact. They are selfish, placing their own pleasure above the good of others. ” 
      I have a major problem with this, selfish is one thing, i do not see in most smokers, quite the opposite in fact, and as far as placing there own pleasure in front of the good of others, I know people that smoke and grow, they wont sell what they grow they give it to close friends that suffer with ms or cancer or any other of the horrible things that cannabis helps such as cvs ( cystic vomiting syndrome) . these people are helping others even though it could land them in prison for 14 years, I cant see how that can be considered selfish at all, in fact i would go as far as saying it’s one of the most selfless things you can do.

      And I’m in the same boat with my comments, guess his spam filter must be set to all incoming   

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=339300004 Edward Benton

      My additional response to Peter H:

      Thanks for the reply Peter, but it is just a little more of the same.You are more or less saying that your “point” is that Stroup said what he said. I’m asking you how exactly this is to the detriment of medical cannabis in any way? Like I said before, one man’s selfish motives do not change the scientific reality of the substance in any way, the benefits remain there, regardless of whether stroup has personal motivations or not.The medical cannabis argument stands on its own two feet, with the backing of the significant body of scientific evidence supporting it. You can doubt the motives of those promoting medical cannabis if you wish – but this still makes medical cannabis no less valuable. Do you think those pushing pharma drugs are doing so for the good of mankind? There’s a profit to be made there – that’s why it’s being done.So you’ve established that at least one campaigner has selfish reasons for promoting medical cannabis.My take on this is that you were hoping your readers would take the leap to “cannabis has no medical benefits” for you, without you having to state it, it is certainly implied in your suggestion, but I won’t pick that battle. All I want you to do is close the loop and finish the point – what are the supposed ramifications of this statement – how does it alter the scientific fact about the substance – or the reality of those who need it for pain relief?So far your “point” rings hollow. It is merely a statement, such as saying “Grass is green” it may be true, but where are you going with it? You seem lost.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=339300004 Edward Benton

      My additional response to Peter H:

      Thanks for the reply Peter, but it is just a little more of the same.You are more or less saying that your “point” is that Stroup said what he said. I’m asking you how exactly this is to the detriment of medical cannabis in any way? Like I said before, one man’s selfish motives do not change the scientific reality of the substance in any way, the benefits remain there, regardless of whether stroup has personal motivations or not.The medical cannabis argument stands on its own two feet, with the backing of the significant body of scientific evidence supporting it. You can doubt the motives of those promoting medical cannabis if you wish – but this still makes medical cannabis no less valuable. Do you think those pushing pharma drugs are doing so for the good of mankind? There’s a profit to be made there – that’s why it’s being done.So you’ve established that at least one campaigner has selfish reasons for promoting medical cannabis.My take on this is that you were hoping your readers would take the leap to “cannabis has no medical benefits” for you, without you having to state it, it is certainly implied in your suggestion, but I won’t pick that battle. All I want you to do is close the loop and finish the point – what are the supposed ramifications of this statement – how does it alter the scientific fact about the substance – or the reality of those who need it for pain relief?So far your “point” rings hollow. It is merely a statement, such as saying “Grass is green” it may be true, but where are you going with it? You seem lost.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jayefftee James Fourtwenty Taylor

      “the general characterisation of pro-cannabis campaigners as selfish and
      wicked is a simple statement of fact. They are selfish, placing their
      own pleasure above the good of others. ”

      I also have a problem with the term selfish, I have smoked recreationally for around 3 years and selfish is not the word. The accepted smoking etiquette is a circle of friends passing joints unselfishly to the point where if someone was to join late, the joint gos immediately to them, I hardly find this to be selfish behaviour.

    • Anonymous

      I often question Mr. Hitchens motives.. is he being honest in his beliefs? Does he really believe that Cannabis is the big evil he often touts? Or does he have an agenda (his comment at Jason’s blog “My forthcoming book will go into more detail” could be interpreted as one). Or is he so entrenched in his position that he can’t admit defeat (much like the general war on drugs!) for fear of losing face/Daily Mail backing? As you said Peter, he is an intelligent man but it is a shame he has come down on what will ultimately be vindicated as the wrong side of the argument

    • Doobz

      I sent a short reply pointing him in the direction of Irvin Rosenfeld. Perhaps Peter Hitchens can explain the *real* reason why the Federal Government of the USA send Irvin 11 ounces of marijuana every 25 days.

      Because I’m nice, I gave him a clue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1NggzEkltM

      I am currently waiting for an answer to this question from my MP who told me last time that, “..the Government does not recognise that cannabis in it’s raw form has medicinal benefits.”

    • Neil_2k2

      looked at 38 degrees website and theres no campaign for medicinal cannabis    strange

    • Mr_Bimble

      I’m starting to get worried – first “The daily fail” quote me in an article after picking up on a comment I made on Peter’s original blog & on the “your freedom” website under a different username. Now Mr H & the Daily Fail allow my posts through unedited when I comment on drugs related threads. Either I’m getting more eiquent in my old age or my views are OK with the editorial staff which is worrying.

      Slightly off topic – I was having a drink with a couple of journalists I used to work with last week (before the NotW closed) and we were discussing the “gutter press” and were sure that once the government have finished with Murdoch and his cronies they would be attacking the other redtops – the old conversation of press censorship & readers getting the press they deserved was had at length over several beers.

      The PCC is a complete sham and hopefully an ofcom style body will be created to keep the press honest and truthfull which will ultimately help our cause and bring down journalists that fill the papers with moralistic opinions, lies & distorted facts regardless of the subject. 

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

      I could not get the column to accept my offering either, even after I removed the links I had used to reference my views.
      Like Peter I wanted to tell him that Sativex does contain the ‘high’ he is so afraid of, thats why it works!
      I also wanted to tell him that the real wicked propaganda, was the continued use of scare headlines that say cannabis causes psychosis, that it has no medicinal value, that it is lethal – when we all know there are no recorded deaths.

      Finally I would like to show you what Stroup himself says about this.
      http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/redherring.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Token-Ma-Weed/100001565642671 Token Ma Weed

      I sent him the UK420 link where they put up pictures of the experiment they did with sativex and chocolate and he failed to post that as well . Im not wasting my time with him any more and i would suggest that we all ignore him from now on . I think he gets off on pissing people off by telling lies or its in his contract with the Daily Mail ” thou shall not tell the truth ever ” .   

    • Puzzled

      Something that has always puzzled me about Irvin Rosenfeld, and the issuing of his medicine, “where does the cannabis come from”? If they are producing and supplying it themselves, are they not breaking their own laws and also becoming dealing in a controlled substance.If not, who are they dealing with?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Nixon/100002285727966 Danny Nixon

      I’m really starting to wonder if PH is playing Poe here? Surely no one can really be this blatantly idiotic? It seems to be taking a huge level of mental gymnastics, denial and ignorance of the facts for him to retain this position?
      I’m also having trouble posting my response, although I’m not sure why? The word count is only 493 and I’ve been careful with my wording? Is there any chance I can post it here so someone can point out where I’m going wrong or what I might need to change? I don’t want to stick it here without checking as it’s quite long.

    • http://www.facebook.com/theemurr Tom Hairettin

      Afaik the University of Mississippi has held a license since 1968 to grow cannabis in bulk for the government and for research, so I would guess it comes from there. I think the whole Rosenfeld thing started with a few others as a medical trial, with only a few patients approved, Irvin Rosenfeld being the most high profile survivor.
      At work so cant read properly, but here’s the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investigational_New_Drug_program

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

      You’re welcome to past it here Danny

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

      We all know your real name is Rupert!

    • MR_Bimble

      I think PH is having a dig….

      http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/07/good-advice-from-a-dope-lobbyist.html

      lets see if my reply gets through – especially this bit….

      The cannabis debate needs to take place and I for one would pay good money to see the main protaganists locked into a debating room until the truth is out. One way or another….

      I can see it now : the two Peter’s, Prof Nutt, Debbra Bell, MP’s, top police officers, social workers & doctors all locked into a room at Westminster with the whole thing televised live

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

      Peter, Mr Hitchens, Prohibitionist Bigot, whichever you would prefer me to call you, at last a response from you.

      Between the obfuscation of your “moderation” and the deluge of anti-cannabis delirium, I confess you are successfully deterring me from even bothering any more.

      The substance (which it took me about a week to get through to you) is in my comment on “..Red Herring…” at 05.09pm, 14-07. I note that you’ve conveniently managed to miss this.

      If you really have accepted the challenge then we shall face each other at the University of Salford in October. I can assure you that I do take myself and my cause at least as seriously as you take yourself.

      In the meantime, I’m happy to duel with you wherever and whenever you want. In fact, I know a sponsor who will fund a debate between you and me wherever and whenever you want – to be recorded, broadcast, distributed as widely as possible. I know he’ll be happy to pay your expenses.

      Are you up for it?

      Once again, I take off my glove and slap you across the face with it.

      I throw it at your feet.

      Will you pick it up?

    • MR_Bimble

      Damn – I’ve been sussed….

      As a paid-up member of clear you probably know who I am not Rupert…

      Anyway i’ve decided to become PH’s constant itch as I’ve got nothing better to do now my back has given up the ghost again.

    • Andy Tours.

      This guy Hitchens makes my blood boil. To call cannabis activists in the way that he has as a pleasure seeking herd etc. I volunteer at the Cannabis College in Amsterdam to re-educate the public about Cannabis, in particular the medical side. I do NOT get one penny for my work. Is that being selfish and pleasure seeking? Hitchens you are a pathetic and a very sad soul, just like Nadine Dorries and Charles Walker, so called British MPs. All of you in govt. are hypocrites and I shall not rest in my endeavours to make at least Cannabis legal for medical purposes. I wish you Peter all the very best vibes for this meeting in October. No wonder the politicians are scared to meet us, because deep down they know that we are right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Nixon/100002285727966 Danny Nixon

      Cheers. In other news it would seem that I can’t post anything from my main e-mail anymore. I just constantly get the “sorry can’t accept this data” thing. I’ve tried replying with an old e-mail address and it seems to fix the problem. ;)
      Here’s my reply:
      PH, your claim that legalisation campaigners are
      “selfish and wicked” is not a fact. It is simply your own bigoted
      opinion and nothing short of an ad hominem. This is not how one debates and not
      something one expects to hear from an individual who claims to be “Maintaining the rules”.

      “Selfish”
      Firstly you make the error that all those who wish to see
      legalisation are users themselves. This is simply not born out by facts or
      logic. Whilst most users would wish to see their past-time decriminalised, it
      is not only these individuals who yearn for change. There are many non-users
      out there who see what a failed system prohibition is and no longer wish to see
      their hard earned taxes being urinated into the wind. Some of us see how
      inadequate “crime-school” is at treating what is (at worst) a public
      health issue and no longer wish to support this ridiculous farce. However
      uncomfortable this fact is, it is a fact.
      Secondly you can in no way claim to know what everyone’s
      motive is for wanting a change in the law. By asserting that all legalisation
      campaigners are in it for the same reason you are making a fatal error of
      logic. 

      “Wicked”
      This was the worst of the two insults you chose to throw
      out. I’d love to know what you think gives you the moral high ground or insight
      to make such a damning assertion of such a huge swathe of society? Or of course
      how a statement of morality becomes a statement of fact in your mind?
      The actual fact is that it is you and your ilk that exposes
      users to the highest level of harm from illicit drugs. It’s the prohibitionists
      who throw the supply and trade to a chaotic and unregulated black market in the
      search of some mythical drug-free nirvana. It’s your drug war that
      discriminates unfairly against those most at risk and criminalises those simply
      seeking to improve their quality of life.
      I have to wonder, would you also damn other things for which
      the majority suffer no harm? Would you suggest that the majority of peanut
      consumers are responsible for the few who die or suffer from severe allergic
      reactions?  In your eyes are all people
      who enjoy a quiet glass of wine at the weekend the cause of alcohol psychosis
      amongst the masses?
      If not, then you sir, are a hypocrite.

      Finally, please stop bleating on about the fact that people
      are choosing to remain anonymous. It is obviously being used as a diversion
      tactic for you to avoid actually dealing with the body of people’s
      arguments.  It doesn’t change the facts
      being presented to you because the poster is internet savvy. Usernames and
      pseudonyms are a standard part of the internet community and have been for a
      long while now. A rose by any other name still stinks, complaining about the
      smell doesn’t make it any less of a rose!

      Edit – had a slightly dodgy format when I posted it

    • Mr_Bimble

      What date / time & any chance of a ticket….

      I think PH might be suprised to see who Mr_Bimble is (or rather what he is not..).

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

      Darling, I can’t wait to see you in all your finery.

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

      There have been many, many suggestions made to them