Tuesday, November 8, 2011 -

    Radio 5 live 8th November 2011

    Peter Reynolds interviewed along with Mark Davis of RETHINK mental health on 8th November 2011 regarding young people’s attitude to cannabis

    Peter reynolds 5live-8-11-11 by NR23Derek

    A reasonable interview, where the concerns expressed by RETHINK were given a fair hearing, along with Peter’s views. However, later (just before 9.00am) the same programme broadcast this contribution from Terry Hammond. Terry is the father of a young man who developed sever mental illness, who was also a cannabis user. Terry is a well known campaigner for the idea that cannabis causes mental illness and his case has underpinned the prohibition case against cannabis

    Terry-hammond-5live-8-11-11 by NR23Derek
    Terry claims cannabis causes brain damage, his views were aired at a time when far more people would have been listening than was the discussion involving Peter Reynolds. His claims were not challenged. Cannabis, it must be said, does not cause brain damage.

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

    Related news:

    1. PCC Complaint. The Independent, 4th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD
    2. PCC Complaint. The Guardian, 14th June 2011
    3. PCC Complaint. The Evening Standard, 26th January 2011 – RESOLVED
    4. PCC Complaint. The Daily Mail, 5th February 2011 – NOT UPHELD
    5. PCC Complaint. The Daily Mail, 2nd June 2011 – NOT UPHELD
    • Cshaws

      Sounds a bit daft but I liken the situation over the percieved potential harms of cannabis to those of beekeeping. I kept bees for quite a few years on and off. Despite all the hype honeybees can be seriously dangerous to health.  Over the  years I gradually developed worse reactions to bee stings but some people can have serious allergic reactions to these stings resulting in death – that includes beekeepers themselves.  On average four Bee or Wasp sting anaphylaxis deaths are reported per year in the UK and many  more potentially fatal episodes.  Bee venom allergic reactions run a greater risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis than do wasp venom allergic reaction. But no-one would suggest prohibiting honey which has a range of medicinal applications as well as culinary.  Knowledge, common sense, awareness, education and preparation together mitigate the risks.  Prohibition provides non of this mitigation other than the pseudo-education provided by FRANK with its cherry picked ‘facts’ which in the long term may well prove counter productive (and no-one ever died).

    • Anonymous

      Peter, I loved the “when will you have your first drink” retort.. excellent! Highlighted the absurdity very nicely! Whilst Mark was much more measured than other mental health charities he is still disingenuous - he recognised the link with Alcohol and mental illness but I’m sure he still drinks, but ‘would never have touched’ Cannabis in light of a lower statistical correlation than with Alcohol to mental illness… how can he justify that without doublethink?!

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

      I have called him since but he hasn’t returned it.  Rethink has published some relatively sensible stuff on cannabis in the past.  I wonder if we could work together?  That could be newsworthy in itself.

    • Anonymous

      When RETHINK ran their last campaign I tried to involve them wit UKCIA, I was very willing to run an information campaign. I think it might be worth approaching them again, especially given that their last effort was such a dismal failure. If they’re serious about wanting to get a message out to cannabis users they need t work with us, not the NDPA like they did last time.

    • Donbarnard

      19 June, 2005: Panorama “Cannabis:
      what every teenager should know” explored Four hypotheses surrounding the cannabis
      and its role in the often complicated and confusing issue of the development of
      mental illness.

      The first, the causal hypothesis, suggests that heavy cannabis
      use can cause mental disorders such as psychosis.

      Second, the dormant hypothesis argues that cannabis use may
      precipitate a mental disorder that was previously dormant in individuals
      prone to mental health disorders.
       Third, the common cause hypothesis states that mental illness and
      cannabis use may simply occur together as a result of common variables,
      such as unemployment, family difficulties and other drug use.
       The fourth is the self-medication hypothesis, that people use
      cannabis after experiencing signs of a mental health disorder in order to
      alleviate symptoms.
      transcripts of the program and the interviews
      with; Terry Hammond, Dr Philip Robson, Dr Robin Murray and users – plus loads of
      other issues relevant to today’s debate you may find interesting:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4082196.stm

    • Richard

      what we’re saying basically is “we don’t know”.. according to the anti cannabis guy… apparently the state of unknown, the “don’t know”, is far scarier than knowing that alcohol and tobacco does actually screw you up..

      why is the “don’t know” so scary exactly? why can’t the government admit that based on the statistics we “sort of know” that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol or driving on the motorway?

      perhaps it is hard to gather an accurate statistical picture of anything off the radar, do they have trouble quantifying the risk, or do they really not give a s**t?

    • Anonymous

      Honestly…?They just don’t give a shit…

    • hannah

      As a carer of someone who is prescibed Sativex,the active ingredient in it being THC,I have just emailed GWPharma and asked them what their opinion is of these claims.Obviously if THC does what is being claimed then all patints have a right to know.I await their reply with interest.If these claims are true,which I doubt they are,then it would be in their interest to defend the safety of their medecine ie THC.

    • Cshaws

      Hi Hanna –  good to hear you are challenging GW.  But I’m not sure which or whose claims you are referring to ?  Could you clarify ?  tvm

    • hannah

      Sorry for the mistake!It was the claim made by Terry Hammond on Radio 5 that THC in particular was in his words “scientifically proven without a doubt to damage the neurotransmitters in the brain”and had in effect caused his son to develop paranoid schizophrenia.We thought that as Sativex is marketed as primarily a THC medecine it was a fair point to ask GW.As they have a legal duty of care to their patients I would imagine that it was in their interest to be well up to date with all scientific research concerning cannabis.I just hope that they give an honest reply! 

    • Cshaws

      Hannah – thanks for that.  I see where you’re coming from now.  As far as I can see there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support Mr Hammond’s evidence although there are some concerns about its effects on the developing brain (i.e. up to the age of about 17) but more research is needed.  Keep us informed of any response you get :^)

    • Anonymous

      Hey Hannah.
      Good for you for asking this extremely important question at GW pharma.The truth is that most psychotropic substances can cause damage to a developing brain.This is why regulation is the only answer, to avoid the use of Cannabis by anyone under the age of 18, possibly even 21.
      Don’t know if this would help but there is a patent that states that THC actually acts as a neuroprotectant.
      > http://www.google.com/patents/about/6630507_Cannabinoids_as_antioxidants_and.html?id=0pcNAAAAEBAJ
      Heres a link to a US patent that basically says so.
      We all wish you the best in your endeavour.

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

      Hannah, THC is only one of approximately 100 active ingredients in Sativex.  THC and CBD are the most important but GW’s own scientists have published research confirming that it is the combined effects of all the active ingredients that is effective.

      Please do keep us in touch with your correspondence.

    • Hannah

      Thankyou for your feedback.I got quite a swift reply from GW which basically read as follows-
      Dear Hannah
      Many thanks for contacting us.
      You are absolutely right in that THC is a component of Sativex.However it is not the only component of Sativex.The other major component called cannabidiol is acting as a safeguard against any potential effects of THC.The extract from which Sativex is made is highly characterised in terms of purity and overall content of the various active substances.This makes it different from smoked recreational cannabis,which is often high in it’s THC content and contaminated by other things such as heavy metals and fungi.Remember also that extensive studies have been conducted before satisfying the regulators of the safety,efficacy and quality of the medecine enough to issue us with marketing authorisation.To date we have no evidence of any brain damage caused by Sativex.The up to date safety profile of Sativex is provided in the patient information leaflet and be rest assured that if this changes at any time,patients and healthcare providers will be informed immediately.
      Please let me know if you need further clarification or have other concerns.
      Kind Regards
      Dr A Mohammed. 
       While I have every sympathy for Terry Hammond and his son I felt that his statements should be challenged and who better to do it than the only legal providers of cannabis in this country.Their response as you can see is quite clear and it is outrageous that so called respected journalists allow people to make such frightening claims without checking the facts they are supposed to be based on.The anti cannabis lobby does a great disservice to all those like my husband who are forced to break the law in order to treat themselves and by doing so improve their quality of life.Up until Sativex was licenced my husband faced a 14 year prison sentance for doing just that.In fact he was given Sativex after being under a mental health crisis team because he has PTSD and Fibromyalgia. It was their opinion that his PTDS was being made worse by the fact that he was having to break the law in order to treat himself!I would also say that most of the problems with recreational cannabis outlined by Dr Mohammed are a direct result of prohibition!                                                                            

    • Cshaws

      Well done Hannah.  So, according to GW – Cannabis is safe!  I notice they have moved away from the ‘magic pixie juice that can’t make you high’ approach and now are using the ‘purity’ argument.  I think a lot of growers will be somewhat irritated by the ‘…..contaminated by other things such as heavy metals and fungi’ argument.  
      The key statement is…. ‘Remember also that extensive studies have been conducted before satisfying the regulators of the safety,efficacy and quality of the medicine enough to issue us with marketing authorisation…..’    So, there it is in black and white – their research has convinced the government that cannabis is safe. 

      Can I suggest you now forward this response and your thoughts and personal experience to your MP and ask him/her to ask the home office for an explanation of why your husband, and thousands like him, are increasingly forced into criminality in order to obtain their medicine when their approved, licensed supplier has stated that the medicine (i.e. whole plant cannabis extract) is safe and effective.  

      All the best to you and your husband and I hope the cannabis extract continues to help and heal. 

    • Anonymous

      Good on you Hannah!
      The prohibitionist’s will no doubt try to explain that street Cannabis is nothing like Sativex and visa versa.Although they are correct in that unregulated street Cannabis can be very, very strong,what they fail to understand is that history has showed us that having an unregulated, profit driven market is what the real problem is and not the substance itself.Otherwise Sativex is just Cannabis oil in a spray can with a 1:1 thc:cbd ratio.

      I once got a hold of some very well grown and very strong Amnesia Haze.I could tell from just the smell and texture that this was very strong and needed to be treated with respect.I still put it under the microscope lust to check for contaminants and once satisfied of the quality went ahead and used a tiny amount, less than I would usually use.And a good job too as it knocked me for six!Even an experienced user like myself was briefly turned into a giggling schoolgirl and took a short while to collect myself!It made me aware that if this particular type of weed was available to a novice or younger user with less experience and more peer pressure and without the proper information on dose titration, the outcome could have been a little more distressing to them than just having a fit of the giggles and needing to satisfy the munchies.To a prohibitionist this would prove to them that eradication and prevention is the only way to protect our kid’s from this plague on society. For me however as an experienced user with 20+ years of usage it served to prove the point that a regulated and controlled market was the only way to safely and intelligently control a substance which in the wrong hands can and has caused distress to a minority, mainly because of age and/or inexperience.

      Anyway I’m ranting again.

      All the best to you both and don’t forget that enjoying your medicine can also have a positive physical effect as well as a positive psychological feeling of well being.
      Take care…