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

You will have to pay for the medicine yourself but with a UK doctor’s prescription, go to Holland and bring back three month’s supply.  Any prosecution is bound to fail.

Norman Lamb MP, UK health minister, has written that UK doctors may prescribe Bedrocan’s medicinal cannabis products: Bedrocan, Bedrobinol, Bediol and Bedica.

Prohibition is crumbling.  If you can afford it, then get your medicine now.

Pending Clarification: Go Get Your Cannabis Prescription Now! - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dr Robert Lefever

Dr Robert Lefever is a Daily Mail columnist.   In October he wrote an absurd and spectacularly ignorant article about cannabis titled “Even the Dutch think skunk drives you mad”.  I submitted a PCC complaint which you can see here.    Essentially, Dr Lefever claimed that cannabis available today has been “genetically modified” and that it contains “25 times as much THC as there used to be”. This from a man who trades on his status as a doctor and presents his opinions as those of an expert.  He writes regularly for the Daily Mail on health, medicine and NHS matters.  He says he knows “how to build long-term relationships and help people to heal their depression and stop their addictive or other destructive behaviour.”

I have yet to hear back from the PCC but I expect it to fail to uphold the Editors’ Code yet again.  It is proving itself to be much, much worse than the toothless poodle it has long been regarded as.  It is, in fact, corrupt and dishonest.  I use those words deliberately after careful consideration and based on clear cut documentary evidence.  Some of its recent decisions have been beyond belief, beyond even a parody of a bunch of sleazy hacks covering up for each other.   I intend to explain the truth about the PCC  when I am called to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

In addition to my PCC complaint, I also complained to the General Medical Council (GMC).  I said that Dr Lefever had published false science and deception.  “In my view, it amounts to gross professional misconduct and anyone who is prepared to indulge in such dishonesty is not a fit and proper person to practice medicine.”

This week I received a reply from the GMC.  It seems that Dr Lefever does not even have a certificate to practise medicine.  No action can therefore be taken against him but my complaint will lie on his file and be considered should he ever apply to practise again.

Meanwhile, Dr Lefever continues to trade on his status as a doctor in the Daily Mail.  Today, astonishingly, he writes about the extremely harmful and addictive drug tobacco “I support the right of people to smoke cigarettes, or do other stupid and dangerous things, provided that they pay for the consequences – to themselves and to others – that come from their choice of personal behaviour.”

Contrast that with his attitude towards cannabis

The hypocrisy of this man is breathtaking.  His behaviour is a perversion of the Hippocratic oath.  He is a scoundrel, a charlatan and a quack.  Such are the ProHos that we are up against.

Dr Robert Lefever, The General Medical Council, The Daily Mail And The Press Complaints Commission - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

An application for permission for judicial review has been issued against the Home Secretary by Des Humphrey with Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) cited as an interested party.

Des Humphrey is leader of CLEAR in Wales and director of the Cannabis Truth roadshow.  He is a British Army veteran who suffered a major spinal injury whilst on active service and now uses cannabis to relieve chronic pain and spasms.  He is prescribed Sativex, the cannabis medicine, by his doctor and while it is helpful, he finds that specific strains of expertly grown herbal cannabis work far more effectively.

Des Humphrey

Des has approached the Home Office for a licence to grow cannabis for his personal medicinal use.  Really he just wants to do exactly what GW Pharmaceuticals does but in a very small way.  He has made it clear that he is prepared to comply with whatever reasonable licensing requirements the Home Office stipulates.

The Home Office has  refused even to consider his application.  We believe that this amounts to misuse of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which requires the Home Secretary to provide for licensing for the production of cannabis for legitimate purposes

We cannot be confident that this effort will succeed.  It may fall at the first fence and we may be denied permission for a hearing.  However, this is the beginning of a path which we are determined to follow. Justice must be done and we will not flinch from our efforts to do so.  Des Humphrey has fought for his country already.  Now we must fight for him, that his country should honour and respect him and his right to the medicine that he needs.

The Legal Remedies campaign

Legal Remedies – A Call To Action

Legal Remedies – Opening Salvo

Legal Remedies part 4

The principles upon which Des is taking action are exactly the same as those in which more than 30 people are applying to the Home Office for a licence to import Bedrocan medicinal cannabis.

The Home Office now seems to be ignoring the applications for import licences.  The next stage is to write again, this time by recorded delivery post.  Those participating in the campaign will shortly be contacted with full instructions.

Legal Proceedings Have Been Issued Against The Home Secretary - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Even the Dutch think skunk drives you mad”, The Daily Mail, 11-10-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2047750/The-grass-greener-Holland.html

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

I make this complaint in good faith that you will honestly and fairly judge whether or not there have been breaches of the Editors’ Code. Self-evidently it is the duty of the commission to enforce the Editors’ Code. However, it is clear from many decisions that the commission’s focus is actually on finding excuses for breaches of the code. I am also very concerned that the commission is distorting scientific evidence to support its decisions in exactly the same way as some newspapers distort such evidence to enhance their copy. If it can be shown that commission is failing to enforce the Editors’ Code and/or distorting evidence to support the rejection of a complaint then the commission is not acting in good faith and a cause for action arises to recover damages.

1. The article breaches clause 1.i) of the code in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Dr Robert Lefever as he promotes himself

3. The article is presented as an opinion piece. However, as detailed below, the points complained about are matters neither of opinion nor comment, they are determined by scientific evidence. The Independent Reviewer has already ruled (21-07-11 letter to Peter Reynolds) that a comment “should not be published if it is based on an inaccuracy or misleading statement”. It is particularly dangerous and irresponsible that a journalist who identifies himself as a doctor and claims expert knowledge should advance such inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. I believe that the content of this article amounts to gross professional misconduct and a formal complaint against Dr Lefever is being submitted to the General Medical Council.

4. This complaint needs to be seen in the context of the Daily Mail’s systematic campaign over many years of misinformation, dishonesty, falsification and distortion of evidence concerning cannabis. To date the commission has failed to rein in these activities at all or to make any attempt to do so.

Dr Robert Lefever photographed recently

5. In the fourth paragraph the article states: “The plants have been genetically modified through selective in-breeding.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is neither a matter of comment nor opinion, it is determined by scientific evidence. Cannabis is not “genetically modified”, it is a product of selective breeding. “Genetically modified”, is defined as “An organism whose geneticcharacteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering” (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genetically+modified+organism). Selective breeding is an entirely different process which is natural and does not involve the modification of genes or the insertion of genes from another organism. Selective breeding is the method used to produce everything we grow on farms and has been so for many centuries.

6. In the fifth paragraph the article states “There is now twenty times as much tetra hydro cannabiol – the active chemical ingredient (THC) – as there used to be”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is neither a matter of comment nor opinion, it is determined by scientific evidence. Straightforward common sense reveals what nonsense this statement is. If it were true than the base line THC content for the calculation would have to be below 5% or the result would be that cannabis now is 100% THC. In practice then, as the most recent evidence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13796845) is that average THC content of street cannabis is 7% it would mean that the base line THC content would have been approx 0.3% which is at the non-psychoactive level of industrial hemp.

“There is, of course, exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The United Nations Drug Control Program has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, and the highest was 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized cannabis resin, 6 from morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.” (Dr Ben Goldacre, 2007. http://www.badscience.net/2007/03/reefer-badness/)

James Brokenshire, minister of state in the Home Office, replied to a written parliamentary question on 4th April 2011: “The latest data from the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS) show that the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of mature flowering tops from plants, otherwise known as sinsemilla, seized and submitted to the FSS from the 1 January 2008 to the present day was 14.0%. By comparison, during the same period, the average THC content of traditional imported cannabis and cannabis resin was 12.5% and 5.5% respectively.”

Dr Lefever’s claim of a twenty times increase in THC content is false and a deliberate attempt to misinform. Aside from it being a travesty of journalism, it is a breach of professional medical ethics.

7. In the sixth paragraph the article mentions “genetic modification” which is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information as detailed above.

8. Clearly Dr Lefever should and almost certainly does have a proper understanding of the true facts concerning the false statements he has made as set out above. He is therefore engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive and misinform. He and the editor concerned have breached their duty set out in the preamble to the Editors’ Code to maintain the highest professional standards. They are in fact engaged in the most reprehensible dishonesty. In my view, given the malevolent irresponsibility and deception demonstrated in this article, Dr Lefever is unfit to practice medicine. His motivation for such untruths and dishonesty is the promotion of his Promis “Addiction Rehab Clincs”.

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

PCC Complaint. The Daily Mail, 11th October 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The Legal Remedies campaign

Legal Remedies – A Call To Action

Legal Remedies – Opening Salvo

To join in this campaign, please follow these steps:

1. Register by sending an email to legalremedies@clear-uk.org.   Include your name, email address, telephone number and the condition you treat with cannabis.

2. Approach your GP and/or specialist to seek their support.  Ideally, you want  a prescription for Bedrocan medicinal cannabis.  However, this is unlikely.  What many doctors will do is write a letter of support, at best confirming that cannabis helps with your condition(s), at least confirming that you believe it does.  What you are looking for is the strongest possible written endorsement.  This will be used as evidence in your application for an import licence.

3. Send the email/letter to the Home Office as set out in Legal Remedies – Opening Salvo. N.B. You do not have to have the evidence described in 2) above to send this email. Send the email now and then do your best to get written evidence from your doctor(s).

Latest Developments

The Home Office’s response to those emails/letters already sent has been deliberately to “misunderstand” the request with an entirely spurious response relating to the Schengen Agreement.  Do not be disheartened by this.  It is the sort of dishonest, corrupt, cruel and disgraceful behaviour that you must expect from the Home Office.  The ministers and civil servants concerned want to deflect and dishearten you.  They want to break your spirit and destroy your hope.  You must not let them win.  They are cruel, ruthless and in breach of every minsterial and civil service code of ethics, let alone any standard of human decency.

This is the response that the Home Office is issuing:

From: DLCU Comms Officer
To:
Sent:
Subject: RE: Proposed application for import licence for medicinal cannabis

Thank you for your inquiry on the possibility of importing herbal medicinal cannabis from Holland to the United Kingdom for your own use.

I am aware that this issue has arisen in the context of the UK’s obligations under Article 75 of the Schengen Agreement which took effect in 2005. This provision allows for the free movement of travellers within the Schengen member states with their prescribed narcotic and psychotropic substances that are necessary for their medical treatment, provided they have a certificate – “a Schengen certificate” – issued or authenticated by a competent authority of their state of residence.

Pursuant to Article 75, the UK recognises that a patient who is resident in another member state can travel to the UK with their narcotic and psychotropic medication. This is provided that they are resident in a country where that drug is legally prescribed and it has been prescribed by their doctor. In addition it is for medical treatment for a maximum of 30 days and that it is for personal use only. They must also hold an appropriate certification from a competent authority of their State. Of course, this is a reciprocal arrangement enabling UK residents to travel with their personal medication.

In respect of herbal cannabis, I understand that health authorities in The Netherlands and Belgium allow herbal cannabis products to be prescribed by doctors and dispensed to patients for a number of indications.

In the limited circumstances described above, a Dutch or Belgian resident will be allowed to travel to the UK with herbal cannabis products prescribed in these countries.

However, a UK resident cannot rely on the Schengen Agreement to bring prescribed herbal cannabis into the UK from The Netherlands or Belgium. This activity would be in breach of UK law, amounting to the unlawful importation and possession of a controlled drug and the UK resident would be liable to arrest and prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

You should be aware that in the UK, cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and is listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 as the UK does not recognise that it has a medicinal use.

Kind regards

Sarah Muir
Drug Licensing & Compliance

This is how you should respond:

Dear Ms Muir,

Thank you for your email but it fails to address my enquiry at all.

I fully understand that a UK resident is not protected under the Schengen agreement if obtaining medicinal cannabis in Holland. My enquiry is nothing to do with this.

As I have already made clear, I wish to apply for an import licence and my application will be supported by evidence from my own UK GP and a prescription for medicinal cannabis from an EU doctor.

Will you please now deal with my questions as follows:

1. Please would you confirm that you will accept a licence application from me in good faith and that it will be considered on its own merits?
2. Will you also advise me of what fee will be payable and how long the licence will last as I will need to continue importing my medicine in necessary quantity for the forseeable future?
3. Would you also confirm whether it is it possible to obtain a full or partial remission of the licence fee as I am in receipt of disability benefits?

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Home Secretary is duty bound to give effect to the rational use of a licencing scheme and is entitled to make any necessary exemptions to permit this request. Please let me have your response within 14 days as time is the essence of this enquiry.

Yours faithfully,

If, which is likely, the Home Office refuses even to consider your application for an import licence, then we have an immediate cause for action by judicial review.  Then and only then do we need to be able to present the evidence from your own doctor(s) and, if necessary, obtain a prescription from an EU doctor.

Legal Remedies part 4 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The Home Office - A Den Of Cruelty

There are now around 30 brave souls engaged in a co-ordinated attempt to overturn the British government’s cruel policy on medicinal cannabis – the CLEAR Legal Remedies campaign.

There is not, nor can there be, any reason for the denial of medicinal cannabis to those who need it.  When that need is confirmed by a doctor’s prescription and a reputable, EU-government approved supplier is available, continued denial must be unlawful.  It is our intention to pursue the British government through the courts until it complies with self-evident standards of compassion and justice.

Those already involved have obtained the best possible documentary support they can from their own doctors, both GPs and specialists.  These range from a strongly worded letter from one GP complaining that his prescribing rights are being unlawfully suppressed, to more cautious endorsements of individuals’ own experience.  Most people get the support of their doctors, even if they are nervous about it.  It is a doctor’s sworn obligation to care for his patients and in most cases the beneficial effects of cannabis are very clear.

The final step is to obtain a prescription from a doctor for the particular product and quantity required.  Bedrocan BV, the Dutch government’s official supplier, offers four different products and already exports all over Europe.  Any British doctor is fully entitled under law to write a prescription for a Bedrocan product – but we have yet to find one who is prepared to do so.  This is an appalling indictment of our medical establishment and the unspoken restraint that it imposes on its professionals.  However, CLEAR has now identified doctors from a number of EU countries who are prepared to issue prescriptions to British people in need.

Those participating in the Legal Remedies campaign are now sending the following letter to the Home Office drugs licencing department.  It is a broadside that we are confident will eventually lead to a victory for compassion and common sense.

To the Home Office, 4th Floor, Fry Building, 2, Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF or DLCUcommsofficer@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sirs,

I wish to apply for a licence to import medicinal cannabis from Bedrocan BV, the Dutch government’s official producer.  This would be processed through the Dutch government’s Office for Medicinal Cannabis (OMC) which will issue an export licence provided I am granted an import licence.  The OMC is the Dutch government agency designated in accordance with the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

I require medicinal cannabis in order to treat my condition [insert here details of medical condition].

I have been advised by medical professionals that medicinal cannabis will help me.  I also have direct experience of the benefits to be gained when I have visited [Holland/Belgium/Italy/Spain/Israel/USA or other jurisdictions where medicinal use is permitted].  Medicinal cannabis provides enormous relief to me and improves my ability to [get around/withstand pain/function normally/lead a productive life]

Bedrocan BV provides standardised dosage, medicinal cannabis grown in laboratory conditions and guaranteed free of pesticides, heavy metals and micro organisms to pharmaceutical standards.  Its facilities and products are fully approved by the Dutch authorities.

In support of my application for a licence I will submit correspondence from my UK GP which confirms that medicinal cannabis will help with my condition.  I will also submit a prescription  from an EU doctor for the particular Bedrocan product and quantity that I need.

1. Please would you confirm that you will accept a licence application from me in good faith and that it will be considered on its own merits?

2. Will you also advise me of what fee will be payable and how long the licence will last as I will need to continue importing my medicine in necessary quantity for the forseeable future?

3. Would you also confirm whether it is it possible to obtain a full or partial remission of the licence fee as I am [on a low income/in receipt of benefits]?

Under the  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Home Secretary is duty bound to give effect to the rational use of a licencing scheme and is entitled to make any necessary exemptions to permit this request.  Please let me have your response within 14 days as time is the essence of this enquiry.

Yours faithfully,

If you want to join in the Legal Remedies campaign, please feel free to use the letter template above but please send CLEAR a copy of your letter or a “cc” on your email.

We understand the uncertainty, difficulty and fear in taking this path.  Often those who are most in need of the medicinal benefits of cannabis are those most unable to sustain the commitment and persistence required.  We will support you to contribute as and when you can.  There is no shame in illness or disability and great honour in the struggle to be well.

Please write to CLEAR on this subject at legalremedies@clear-uk.org or Legal Remedies, PO Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 9BN

Legal Remedies – Opening Salvo - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Sarah Martin. Britain's Foremost MS/Cannabis Activist.

Sarah Martin, a legend in the British cannabis campaign and a CLEAR member, is speaking at the International Association For Cannabinoid Medicines (IACM) conference on Saturday, 10th September 2011.

This is the 6th IACM Conference on Cannabinoids in Medicine and the 5th European Workshop on Cannabinoid Research.  It is taking place in Bonn, Germany.  Details here.

GW Pharmaceuticals is also playing a major role in the conference.  What is clear though is that one brave individual, motivated by her own illness, offers far more value than Big Pharma with its government-sanctioned monopoly and misinformation campaign around Sativex.  While Sarah risks her freedom, GW’s directors socialise with government ministers.

Sarah is presenting a paper on the potential of cannabis oil for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS).  This is one of the most significant contributions ever made in advancing cannabis as medicine in a fully accredited, scientific context .  We should all be bursting with pride at what Sarah has achieved.

CLEAR is also a member of the IACM. It was founded in March 2000 and its aim is to advance knowledge on cannabis, cannabinoids, the endocannabinoid system, and related topics especially with regard to their therapeutic potential.  This includes:

• Support for research into cannabis products and the endocannabinoid system;
• Promotion of exchange of information between researchers, health care practitioners, patients and the public;
• Preparation and dissemination of reliable information on the pharmacology, toxicology and therapeutic potential of cannabis and modulators of the endocannabinoid system;
• Monitoring and documentation of national and international developments with respect to cannabinoid therapeutics;
• Co-operation with other organisations and associations sharing the mission and goals of the IACM
• A declaration of the right of doctors to be able to discuss the medicinal use of cannabis with their patients.

The truth about cannabis is clear and no one is doing more to advance it than Sarah Martin.  We salute her.

Sarah Martin Represents The Leading Edge Of Cannabis Medicine In Britain. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The Sativex Scam part 1

The Sativex Scam part 2

Misinformation, Propaganda, Untruths And Lies.

The title of this piece reveals that it is an extra.  I had intended to get to the scandalous untruths being promoted by GW Pharmaceuticals a little later in this series but events have overtaken me.

In the Manchester Evening News, the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Mirror, GW has been promoting the untruth that Sativex “does not get users high” and patients do not experience the “euphoria associated with illegal recreational use of cannabis”.

These are bare faced lies.

Each one of them will be the subject of a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.  I am also investigating the possibility of complaints to the professional bodies responsible for the accreditation of the doctors and scientists behind this misinformation.  There may also be an opportunity to question this false information being provided to investors and shareholders in GW Pharma.

I have tried Sativex myself.  Four sprays, the recommended amount, produces a “high”, easily recognisable as the same effect as from high-CBD varieties of cannabis.

It took me less than an hour to obtain the following five testimonials from other people who have used Sativex.

“I am prescribed Sativex and can confirm that I get a body high from using it, not as much as a pure joint filled with just pure cannabis, but it does effect the way I think and the way my body feels.” Desmond Humphrey

“I sprayed Sativex 4 times under my tongue, as first I could taste the mint flavour, however the overbearing taste of the cannabis soon came through and it certainly tasted like real cannabis. The effects came on quite quickly and within half an hour I felt like I had eaten a very strong space cake like the ones sold in the coffeeshops of Amsterdam. In other words, I got very stoned.” Chris Bovey.

“Sativex affects me in the same way as Bediol, the high-CBD medicinal cannabis from Bedrocan, the Dutch government supplier.  Of course it gets me high.” Clark French

“Proper medicinal grade herbal cannabis works best for my spinal injury but Sativex is OK.  It helps with the pain and gives me the same relaxing effect.” Jim Starr

Upon two sprays under the tongue, I admit I felt nothing, that is until after around an hour when I could feel the effects slowly creep up on me. Colours got brighter and ideas started flowing just like when I smoked herbal cannabis. Things felt better and more interesting than usual and I found myself giggling at the smallest of things. To summarise, I was high. Yumita Yumara

However, astonishingly, the conclusive proof of GW’s deception, comes from its own documentation.  The Sativex Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC), a statutory document, on page 6, item 4.8 reports that “euphoric mood” is a common side effect.

I rest my case.

The Sativex Scam part 2.5 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Our biggest costs are travelling expenses, printing and promotional material.  Everyone who works for CLEAR does so on a voluntary basis and all members of the executive committee even pay their own telephone and internet bills.

Over the next few months we have some big commitments.   Our biggest single expense ever has been commissioning the “Taxing the UK Cannabis Market” report from IDMU.  Now the press conference on 14th September also involves considerable expense and then through the rest of the year, the Cannabis Truth roadshow will need support.  Apart from petrol and a cheap hotel or B&B when we can’t stay with members, local councils charge for such events, sometimes hundreds of pounds.

It doesn’t matter if it’s only a fiver.  Everything makes a difference, goes directly towards the campaign and is another step on the road towards ending the prohibition of cannabis.

We also have some big expenditure ahead with the Legal Remedies campaign.  We have now identified three European doctors who are prepared to consider prescriptions for medicinal cannabis. We’re still working out the logistics but it may mean flying one or more of the doctors to the UK, putting them up in an hotel and bringing medicinal users to them.  The expense involved will be considerable.

So please, go to the home page and click on the “donate” button.  Alternatively, please send a cheque, postal order or small denomination banknotes to CLEAR, PO Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey. RH1 9BN.

If it’s a fiver, thank you very much.  If you can afford more, please do so!

Appeal For Funds – Please Help! - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The Opportunity

It is certain that mankind has used cannabis consistently for around 5000 years.  In fact, it’s probably more.  That was the Bronze Age.  Before that was the Stone Age which lasted 2.5 million years.  Before that homo sapiens wasn’t even the predominant species.  I would guess it’s more like hundreds of thousands of years ago that ancient man first discovered the value of the cannabis plant.

Cannabis is mentioned in Chinese writings on pharmacology said to date from 2737 BC.  Also in the ancient Indian Atharva Veda from the second millennium BC and on tablets from the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal, an Assyrian king, who lived around 650 BC.

An urn containing cannabis leaves and seeds, unearthed near Berlin, is believed to date from 500 BC.  Homer and Herodotus both referred to cannabis in their writings and the practice of inhaling its vapours.

Clearly there is something extraordinary about this plant, about it’s medicinal and other properties.  Crucially, we wouldn’t have continued to use it for all this time if it wasn’t both safe and effective.

Cannabis became politically incorrect (for there is no other reason for its prohibition) early in the 20th century.  It was fundamentally a racist attitude that first demonised cannabis.  Harry Anslinger, who was out of a job after alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, was quite straightforward about it, he said it made white women promiscuous with black men.  Then it was said to make you mad and violent.  Then the story swung in completely the opposite direction and it was supposed to make you apathetic and lazy. Attitudes have changed very little since.  When you hear people like Charles Walker, the Tory MP or the US Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, and the ridiculous things they say, you realise that it’s exactly the same nonsense and prejudice as before.  It’s just been updated and tweaked for a modern audience.

So against this background, the huge, absolutely colossal business opportunity that cannabis offers is clear.  Something that is so intrinsically popular and valuable to mankind is suddenly banned and controlled as if it were a deadly poison or more precious than gold or diamonds.  Those controlling it have the business opportunity to end all others.  Now, they even have the ability to bring all the most modern weapons of warfare in co-ordinated, international action to protect and defend their interests.  Every police force across the world is engaged in protecting the cannabis business and, over time, consistent propaganda has built up a moral outrage and repugnance against what is actually a benign but extremely valuable plant.  The revenue potential is such that it means nothing to buy all the doctors and scientists that you might need to validate and promote your scheme.  These are the perfect conditions and environment to step in and seize one of the biggest and safest business opportunities ever.

It was organised crime that first exploited the cannabis market.  Now though it is government sanctioned monopoly and international law that has brought forth the emergence of Sativex.

Developed by GW Pharmaceuticals, with the co-operation of governments and drug enforcement agencies across the world, Sativex is  the first stage in a master plan to hijack the medicinal properties of the cannabis plant for private profit and to reap trillion dollar rewards under the patronage of senior politicians and the law enforcement and armed forces they control.  It is the ultimate scam.

The Sativex Scam part 2 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Baroness Angela Browning

I wrote to Baroness Browning back on 16th May shortly after she was appointed as the new drugs minister.   You can read that first part of this story here: A Welcome Note To The New Drugs Minister.

I wrote to her again on 27th June.  You can read that here: Baroness Browning On Cannabis Part 2

I wrote again today:

Dear Baroness Browning,

I refer to my previous emails and letters to you concerning the medicinal use of cannabis.

Despite four emails and two letters since you were appointed drugs minister, I haven’t received anything from you which even attempts to deal with the issues I have raised.  That is bad enough in what is supposed to be a democratic country but now I have absolute proof that the Home Office is providing false and misleading information about medicinal cannabis.  This is a very serious matter which involves dishonesty towards people who suffer from dreadful illnesses and disabilities.  It requires your urgent attention.

In correspondence from the Home Office, enquirers are now being told that the medicinal use of cannabis will not be permitted, nor even reviewed, because the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has not “identified any medicinal benefits”.  However, the ACMD has offered no such advice, nor could it.  I have a letter from Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD (copy attached) in which he states unequivocally that it “…is not constituted to consider the medical benefits of any drug”.

This is not something that has happened just once or twice.  We have the evidence of the many occasions when this explanation has been given in writing.  Clearly, it is Home Office policy and it is dishonest. It must be corrected.  It is nothing more than an excuse because there is no reasonable explanation for the denial of medicinal cannabis.

The matter of the re-scheduling of Sativex brings this to a head.  Any attempt to re-schedule Sativex as anything but cannabis will be dishonest.  There is no pharmacological difference between cannabis and Sativex.  I give you notice that the government will be subject to legal action if it seeks to re-schedule Sativex dishonestly or in a misleading way.

For your convenience, I am attaching copies of the emails and letters I have sent previously.  As leader of CLEAR, I see a great deal of correspondence between the Home Office and our members.  The policy you are pursuing is not only dishonest, it is also shockingly cruel, deeply unjust and flies in the face of all the scientific evidence.

If you want to know what your chief drugs advisor, Professor Iversen, actually thinks about medicinal cannabis than I suggest you watch the video of his British Pharmacological Society lecture last year “Bringing Cannabis Back Into the Medicine Cabinet”: http://vimeo.com/19315276

CLEAR is now co-ordinating the efforts of approximately 30 individuals who have a doctor’s prescription for medicinal cannabis.  They are just the tip of the iceberg and there is no reasonable argument against permitting them access to the medicine their doctors have recommended.  Unless you can offer me some definite indication of change, we will be pursuing this through the courts.  This will cost a great deal of public money as well as adding to the suffering of those involved.  Will you not now please reconsider this terribly cruel, unfair and irrational policy?

As I have already explained, this does not require any change in the law, merely for you to authorise the issue of import licences for Bedrocan, medicinal cannabis from the Dutch government’s official producer.  If you will not do this, when it is required in order to fill a doctor’s prescription, please will you explain to me why?

Please understand that these questions are not going away.  Ignoring them or providing misleading answers will not achieve anything except to prolong pain and suffering.  There are millions of people in Britain who will not stand for any more dishonesty, deception, misinformation or procrastination on this.  It is time for your department to stop playing games and deal with this properly.  Continued failure to do so can only add to growing suspicion about the government’s relationship with GW Pharmaceuticals which has been granted a unique and unparalleled monopoly.

I repeat, again, my request for a meeting to discuss this.  The government is not dealing with this in a reasonable way.  Please will you arrange an appointment for me to come and see you?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

Baroness Browning On Cannabis Part 3 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

How many stories are there about “cannabis factories” every day?  How many times have you heard that there have been “record seizures”?  How many different coloured large size rolling papers are on sale in your local newsagent, or Sainsbury’s or Tesco?

So imagine how much cannabis is being used throughout the length and breadth of this country?  In cities, towns, villages and your own street.

Now remember that this just what is obvious.  This is just what you hear about.  Inevitably, most of it is hidden.  Most of it isn’t discovered.  For every “cannabis factory” you hear about, another 10 or 20 go undiscovered.

Now how much cannabis do you think is being used in Britain?

It’s astonishing isn’t it?  The latest evidence now indicates that something close to three tonnes of cannabis is consumed in Britain every day.  That’s three million grammes and an “all day smoker” will consume about three grammes a day.  So how many people does that mean are using cannabis every day, every week, or several times a month?

You don’t have to do the calculations do you?  It’s obvious than cannabis use is massive, colossal, stretching throughout society and our country.

So if cannabis causes psychosis or is dangerous or poisonous, where are the casualties?  I mean there would have to be a lot of them wouldn’t there?  When you think about how many people in the 1960s took to smoking pot, where are all the psychotic 60 and 70 year olds?  In fact, people are living longer and healthier lives.

What’s more, the doctors of public health will tell you that the rate and prevalence of psychosis and schizophrenia has remained stable since records began.  There’s been no “spike” since cannabis took off in the sixties and if anything mental illness is declining.  Even harder facts, in 2009 there were about 750 hospital admissions related to cannabis.  There were more than 3000 for peanuts.

So you don’t need a library of statistics.  Cannabis is really pretty safe.  It’s just common sense.

The Evidence For the Safety Of Cannabis Is Overwhelming - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

This is the first part of a series of articles that will investigate the Sativex Scam, a huge confidence trick perpetrated by GW Pharmaceuticals.

It is about corruption, fraud, malfeasance, oppression and cruelty.

It is the story of how GW Pharma has brought Sativex to market on the basis of a massive deception, an extraordinary tale of dishonesty that reaches to the very highest levels.

It includes a unique, monopoly licence to grow tonnes of high potency cannabis, bought by donations to the Labour party.

It includes an organised deception to distinguish Sativex from cannabis when, in fact, it is pharmacologically identical.

It includes a campaign of misinformation to pretend that Sativex does not have the psychotropic effects of cannabis.

It involves corruption at the highest level in the Home Office and the MHRA.

It involves eminent doctors from Britain and the USA, bought and paid for, directly contradicting their previous written evidence and decades of clinical practice.

It involves manipulation of the US patent office to enable the commercial exploitation of naturally occurring substances.

It involves the publication of deliberately false and misleading information to doctors, investors, medicine and financial regulators.

It is based on a secret agreement with USA and UK drug enforcement agencies to dissemble and misinform about Sativex and cannabis in which senior politicians are complicit.

It involves the denial of cheap, effective and safe medicine to hundreds of thousands of people suffering from dreadful illnesses and disabilities.

The Sativex Scam part 1 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Cameron on Cannabis

(Jason Reed):

Dear Home Office/FOI,

I’d like to request the following information:

On the 25th February 2011, the Prime Minister was interviewed live on Youtube by Al-Jazeera. In his comments for the medicinal use of cannabis, Mr Cameron said:

“That is a matter for the science and the medical authorities to determine, and they are free to make independent determinations on that…”

I would like to request information on what the Government have done and are doing to investigate this area; or what they are planning to do.

Thank you for your time and allowing me to mail, with my best, Jason Reed.

In Reply:

Dear Mr Reed,
Thank you for your email of 4 July about the Government’s position on medicinal cannabis. Your email has been passed to the Drugs and Alcohol Unit and I have been asked respond.

 
You ask for information regarding the steps taken by the Government to investigate the medicinal benefits of cannabis.
I should inform you that the Government refers to the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the independent statutory body comprised of experts who keep drugs under review and provide advice to the Government on drug-related issues, based on all available evidence. The ACMD last reviewed cannabis in the 2008 report ‘Cannabis: classification and public health’ published at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/acmd/. The report does not highlight any medicinal benefits of cannabis in its raw form. The Government’s current position is that cannabis in its raw form is harmful and is listed as a Schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (2001 Regulations) as it has no recognised medicinal purposes in the UK.

 
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has the responsibility to ensure that any medicinal product which is to be available in the UK works and is acceptably safe for use as a medicine. It will only grant a marketing authorisation for a product once it is satisfied that it is safe, effective and of an acceptable quality for use in the UK. In the case of a cannabis-based medicinal product – such as ‘Sativex’ – it is the responsibility of the Home Office to then consider its appropriate scheduling under the 2001 Regulations, in consultation with the ACMD.As you are aware, the ACMD has provided advice on the scheduling of ‘Sativex’ under the 2001 Regulations. The report can be found on the ACMD’s website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/. In its findings, the ACMD concludes that ‘Sativex’ has a low abuse potential and low risk of diversion and that based, on the broader basis of its assessment, ‘Sativex’ should be scheduled as a Schedule 4, Part 1 substance under the 2001 Regulations. The Government is currently considering the ACMD’s advice and it will make its position clear in due course.

 
I can reassure you that the ACMD will continue to keep cannabis under review along with all other controlled drugs, in line with its statutory duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph PonanDrugs and Alcohol Unit

Freedom of Information Request – re; Mr Cameron’s Comments on Medicinal Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party