The government’s drugs advisory committee the ACMD is having a similar problem with its attempts to add Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists (SCRAs), so-called “legal highs”, to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).

Now SCRAs present a very real problem; they are not, as is often claimed, “synthetic cannabis”. They are totally new chemicals unrelated to the cannabis plant or anything the cannabis plant produces. They are complex hydrocarbon molecules that act on the same part of the brain as does THC; “agonists” is scientist speak for a substance that goes to work on receptor areas of the brain and the receptor areas THC works on are called “cannabinoid receptors”.

Now brain chemistry is very complex stuff and even small changes in molecular structures can have huge differences in the effect chemicals have on the brain. By way of an example the two most common chemicals in cannabis are THC and CBD, they are very similar chemicals and yet have almost opposite effects on the brain. SCRAs are very different chemicals and although they do work on the same receptors as THC and so produce an effect a bit like getting stoned, nothing is known about what else they do or what happens if you have too much of them.

We have thousands of years of experience of cannabis, we know what it does. We have no experience of SCRAs, no understanding of any long term effects or even really that much knowledge of short term effects. The danger posed by SCRAs is very real and totally unquantifiable.

Hence the ACMD recommends they be added to the system they laughably call “drug control” and ban them under the MoDA, because as we know, prohibition is such an effective way of controlling drugs, ‘honest guv’. So the ACMD set out to define what SCRAs are so that they may be banned. The first nail was driven through the jelly with the publication of the ACMD definitions to be added to the MoDA with the “The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013″ (here).

4. For paragraph 1(c), substitute—
“(c)[2,3–Dihydro–5–methyl–3–(4–morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1, 2, 3–de]–1,4–benzoxazin–6–yl]–1–naphthalenylmethanone.
3–Dimethylheptyl–11–hydroxyhexahydrocannabinol.
[9–Hydroxy–6–methyl–3–[5–phenylpentan–2–yl] oxy–5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10a–octahydrophenanthridin–1–yl] acetate.
9-(Hydroxymethyl)–6, 6–dimethyl–3–(2–methyloctan–2–yl)–6a, 7, 10, 10a–tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen–1–ol.
Nabilone.

What could be difficult with that? It goes on

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)indole, 3-(2-naphthoyl) indole, 1H–indol–3–yl–(1–naphthyl)methane or 1H-indol-3-yl-(2-naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cyanoalkyl, hydroxyalkyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl, (N-methylpiperidin-2-yl)methyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

This is starting to get a bit impractical you might think, but there’s more

Any compound structurally derived from 3–(1–naphthoyl)pyrrole or 3-(2-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring by alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cyanoalkyl, hydroxyalkyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl, (N-methylpiperidin-2-yl)methyl or 2–(4–morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

And indeed it goes on like this for another six paragraphs and then adds another sub-section

1-Phenylcyclohexylamine or any compound (not being ketamine, tiletamine or a compound for the time being specified in paragraph 1(a) of Part 1 of this Schedule) structurally derived from 1-phenylcyclohexylamine or 2-amino-2-phenylcyclohexanone by modification in any of the following ways, that is to say,
(i)by substitution at the nitrogen atom to any extent by alkyl, alkenyl or hydroxyalkyl groups, or replacement of the amino group with a 1-piperidyl, 1-pyrrolidyl or 1-azepyl group, whether or not the nitrogen containing ring is further substituted by one or more alkyl groups;
(ii)by substitution in the phenyl ring to any extent by amino, alkyl, hydroxy, alkoxy or halide substituents, whether or not further substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent;
(iii)by substitution in the cyclohexyl or cyclohexanone ring by one or more alkyl substituents;
(iv)by replacement of the phenyl ring with a thienyl ring.”.

How is all this supposed to be enforced and, perhaps more importantly, how is anyone supposed to obey it? It all makes for a lot of substances which would now come under the prohibition laws, a lot of nails gone into the jelly. So how well fastened to the wall is this jelly? Well, as predicted, not at all. In the time all this was being written the development of SCRAs has moved on and they are now something else, chemicals not covered by the detailed list so painstakingly proposed. So all of the above is redundant before it’s even enacted. Dr Les King wrote in a blog on the ISCD site

“The latest report from ACMD proposes that those earlier definitions should be expanded to capture a wider range of cannabinoid agonists. Yet by the time that report appeared in October 2012, manufacturers had moved on. Table 1 (below) lists twelve substances (i.e. nearly half of the year’s total) that were notified to EMCDDA during 2012, none of which would be captured by the new ACMD recommendations.”

Dr King is wrong to call them “cannabinoid agonists”, they are “cannabinoid receptor agonists” as I’m sure he would accept – the difference is actually very important. You can see his table of substances on the blog by following the link, basically the recommendations are out of date before they’re even enacted, the jelly has fallen off the wall.

“Trying to stay one step ahead of the clandestine chemists would seem to be a futile exercise, involving the publication of regular and probably endless Modification Orders to the Misuse of Drugs Act. On the other hand, cannabinoid agonists are not harmless substances; they act in a similar way to THC. Furthermore, their varied, often high, potency relative to THC and their sale in unregulated products presents a real risk that users could consume excessive amounts in a way that is much less likely with cannabis or cannabis resin.”

That’s a somewhat begrudging way of saying they are more dangerous than cannabis. So what does Les King suggest?

“In conclusion, the answer is perhaps to do nothing.”

Stop putting any more nails in. Another way of saying this is the MoDA has failed, it cannot control these substances. Presumably then he is accepting they can be sold openly as a “safer” alternative to cannabis on the grounds that they are not illegal and therefore will not bring the user into conflict with the law. Also – as a bonus, will not show up on drug tests for employment or driving. Prohibition has been beaten, clearly for all to see.

If this is what happens, the prohibition law will really have created a problem. In its attempts to ban something known and relatively harmless – cannabis – it will have created an unknown, unquantifiable and uncontrollable problem. So in truth, “do nothing” is really not an option either. What we need to do is something different, something actually workable and which stops trying to do something that doesn’t work.

The market for SCRAs only exists because people want cannabis. The way to kill the trade in these synthetic drugs is to allow access the what people want – the real thing; cannabis.

Nailing Jelly to the Wall - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Member

As you may know, it looks likely that there will be a by-election in the Northampton town of Corby in November.

We are considering whether I should stand as a candidate and I would welcome your views on the subject.

CLEAR has never aimed to win seats in parliament because we are a single issue party. However, this may be an opportunity to stand and create a campaign to win more influence for our cause and to highlight the fact that both major parties have identical and dysfunctional cannabis policies. What we will be aiming for is publicity and, it is possible, that it might give us more credibility with MPs and the government.

On the other hand, we are unlikely to win more than a few hundred votes so it could be that all an election would demonstrate is how limited our support is.

On the positive side, Corby is a marginal seat with an existing majority to the Conservatives of just under 2000. So, if we were able to gain 500, maybe even 1000 votes, we could be an important factor. However, current polling in the constituency has Labour at 52%, Conservative at 37% and Lib Dem at 7%. We could end up being lumped in with the Monster Raving Loony party and achieving nothing.

I have already made contact with the local Lib Dems, Green Party and UKIP, all of whom have policies sympathetic to our cause, to see if we could work together. We do need to decide though whether or not we want to stand. We will need a budget of at least £1500 which we will have to raise specially. £500 will go on our deposit which we will lose and then we will have to print leaflets for a free delivery to every household and pay travelling and other campaigning expenses.

What do you think? Please let me know by replying to this email. We’re not conducting this as a formal referendum but you can say yes or no and please add any comments or ideas.

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

A representative selection of responses is published below.  All identifying information has been removed. The executive committee will reach a decision within the next few days.

hi, i think you should go for it, i think it will be a good to test the water for future reference. thanks

*
Eight reasons to stand at Corby

1] This gives an opportunity for the issues around cannabis law reform
to be posted to every household in the constituency. If there were 50
000 households that would make a cost of delivery of £1 for every 100
households

2] If you get 500 votes in a constituency of 50k votes that is 1% of the vote.
If you got the same result in 600 constituencies in a general election
that amounts to 300 000 votes. Politicians notice this statistic and
it will influence their policies

3] Cannabis politics has existed since 1997 that is 15 years since that time,
Cannabis has become legally available to medical users in 17 American states
And cannabis is available on the NHS for MS and spasm patients.
Cannabis social clubs are now legal in Spain and Belgium.

4] Cannabis law reform is not just a single issue, it covers the right
for farmers to grow hemp, it covers the right of people to self
medicate, it covers the right of privacy in peoples own homes, it
covers environmental issues in that the cannabis can supply raw
material for food and food manufacturing, manufacturing for paper,
clothing, plastic, building materials and fuel.

5 Since clear advertises itself as a political party, it makes sense
to start to put up candidates.

6] Prosecution guidelines now allow for medical users growing under
nine plants to be given a caution.

7] There is no comparison between a cannabis political party and the M
R Loony party the first affects the lives of millions of people and
thousands who endure prosecution and prison
whereas the second is a frivolous joke intended to inject some humour
into the political system., It is interesting to note that Screaming
lord Sutch’s first political party was the national teenage party,
and the policy was votes for teenagers, It is interesting to note that
this policy ins now law, in that minimum age for voting is now 18 and
lowering the age to 16 is under discussion

8] As the Clear website advertises the Cannabis Truth Roadshow, what
better place to start than the Corby by-election, with a candidate
standing for Parliament.

*
I believe if we can work alongside the other parties mentioned it would be an opportunity not to be missed
as I believe you do also. It would be another avenue for us to stampede down with other more recognized
parties. This can only be a good thing for Clear despite the minority within our party who will oppose it.

To stand alone however could as you suggested be detrimental in the long run for our cause, and my
opinion is that it would be too risky even though the idea was worthy of thought and discussion Peter.

Your passion for us all is great Peter and I’d personally like to thank you for all your hard work which can
sometimes be taken for granted by some.

*
YES : Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

*
Thanks

A marginal is likely to be hotly contested with any CLEAR effort all but obliterated by the campaign efforts
of the major parties latter struggling to remain within their own budgets and legal spending limits
*
It does coincide with the police elections, so that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on
whether it steals or provides the limelight. However, it’s a lot of time, effort and money and not much time
for preparation to get a couple of hundred votes. Though it would be invaluable experience for yourselves I
would imagine.

Personally I don’t mind if you do or don’t as both have pros and cons. Do something though if you don’t
stand, such as 5,000 educational leaflets delivered to affluent city suburbs (where the people with the
power and heard voices live!).

Thanks for your hard work,

*
I think that running is a good idea, especially considering the media attention this by-election is likely to
receive. It is important for this party to be seen to be active and to be “getting our name out there”. At the
very least it is cheap advertising, there are probably millions of people sympathetic to our cause who have
no idea CLEAR exists. Any well reasoned pro-cannabis campaign is a good thing. This may not gain
Corby resident’s votes, but it may well change some minds.

*
run in the election i live in the area please run i will vote x

*
Stand.
1. It will give publicity to the cause
2. You will not win but regardless of the number of votes you will receive you will be able to confirm and
then state that you have political mandate.
3. If you get a half decent percentage it will almost certainly make mainstream news

*
I think that anything that raises our profile with the people and the powers that be can only be good. It
would allow us to have a voice in parliament and an opportunity to show that we are responsible and
serious about what we say. Not the reefer mad men or sceavy stoners they probably think we are.
Credibilty is paramount and if we can gain some with M.P.s all the better.

If we go down like a lead brick we will stand back up and carry on. Strong in the knowledge we have
gained from the experience. If we don’t get any votes will anybody remember next year???

I think the pro’s out weigh the cons.

*
YES!

I think that the level of exposure the party would receive if you were to stand would be an excellent
advantage, allowing us to reach people who otherwise may not be aware of CLEAR. A large part of the
problem CLEAR has is that people are unaware either of the facts regarding cannabis, or that a legitimate,
well-organised party is campaigning for sensible treatment of both cannabis and it’s users. Some of the
posters on the CLEAR website (especially the one about drug dealers) would have an excellent influence
on the public if they were exposed to them, however opportunities for this exposure are limited. So despite
the unlikelihood of winning I believe that standing would allow the party access to the general public, both
cannabis users and non-users, and this exposure will certainly gather more support. Another worthwhile
point to mention is that due to ill formed opinions on cannabis, the media could pounce on this as it is a
controversial subject, and after all they only care about headlines. This could lead to national exposure,
which could only be a good thing. I say this because, firstly, the party needs to reach more people,
especially users (obviously they are more sympathetic to the cause) and people suffering from illness who
are unaware of the beneficial health effects of cannabis. Secondly, I think that national (or any) media
coverage can only be a positive because we, unlike prohibitionists, are backed up by science. Not only
are we able to prove that our arguments are true and reasonable, we can also disprove the drivel that is fed
to the general public regularly by the media regarding cannabis.

Standing in the election seems to me like the best idea, the exposure will definitely work to our
advantage. Even if the results are terribly low, this too could help as people who are sympathetic to our
cause but failed to vote for whatever reason would perhaps realise that the only way for change to happen
is for everyone who believes as we do to stand up for what they believe in. And if we did win then we would
undoubtedly be in a much stronger position, and other parties that are sympathetic to our cause would be
less afraid of supporting us, especially if some of our votes come from what they thought were their
supporters.

Standing for election shows that we are serious about the issue, and the exposure would do nothing but
good for us. I say to go for it, what’s the worst that can happen :)

*
Yes for sure!

*
I think it would be best to try and work with the Liberal Democrats. Alone CLEAR would probably not get
many votes even from people who support law reform because other issue (jobs, government cuts etc) will
be higher up their agenda. I think the most effective way of making cannabis law reform a mainstream
issue is to try and influence the Lib. Dems. to support it. They can use it to criticize the two main parties
for their nonsensical policies which will bring the issue into the media eye and force top politicians to talk
about it.

*
Should we put up a candidate in Corby?

Yes (if it is worth it).

Is it going to be worth it?

That depends on how much effort we can put into it.

We know we are going to take a pounding, this is a golden opportunity to
find out exactly how much. Bugger the money, handled correctly the
publicity from the BBC alone should bring in 5 times what it costs.

The deposit aside, all you need is volunteers. I don’t know how much
first hand experience you have with the election process but the
marginal ones are not won by policies or parties but by sheer weight of
numbers of active supporters pounding the streets beforehand. Granted
it would take 10s of thousands in our case to gain the win but if we
don’t get that we could lose in grand style. A single vote cast for
Clear is a win simply because it has never been done before and if we
can flood the streets with short haired, booted and suited helpers while
the cameras are rolling we win even more.

One very important question though, why you? Have we not got a middle
aged, moderately good looking, articulate, “liberal”, female, medicinal
user, party member who lives in the area who can address issues of
importance to the locals from a local perspective. Better that than
some carrot cruncher up from the west country for the day. There are
loads of votes cast in favour of locals merely because they are,
especially if you make it an issue. Which, if we have a local candidate
and the main parties do their normal parachute attack, we can.

And for gods sake, if the money is there along with the consensus to
stand then make the results of these discussions as public as you can.
Let Us do what They don’t.

One last thing, if we do stand, we are not standing in order to lose,
our intention is to win and whether we win or lose is not up to us or
the paid lackey of any media mogul, it is up to the voters of Corby.
The decision is theirs and will be made on the day and we can get even
more votes for just sticking to that line regardless of anything to do
with Cannabis.

*
I think it’s a great idea, even if people just hear about Clear, it will at least be known of when people start
looking into it.

You could run a Fundraiser, I’d expect active members to donate maybe £4 or £5 if convinced.

Keep fighting the good fight!

*
Yes do it, publicity is publicity good or bad best case scenario you win the seat and we are represented in
parliament, worst case you don’t either way the public are more aware of us and our cause. The majority
of people I know agree prohibition is ridiculous maybe the good people of Corby feel the same

*
I think you should stand at the by-election.
Corby has a huge problem with drug addicts which in turn means more
dealers living off the back of this problem. I feel strongly that people
should be allowed to live as they feel fit if they do no harm
to anyone else. Personal responsibility should be embraced
instead of the prohibition we live under ,and I’m not
talking just cannabis.
I am a clear member because of my Son’s mental
health problems and his needs, I have never used cannabis, BUT, I would
like the God given right to do so without interference IF I CHOSE to.
I am supporting you Peter as you are speaking out for the thousands
who want this freedom. Thank you

*
Go for it, Peter, it highlights the issue and could change the outcome.
By the way Labour DO have many supporters of decriminalisation. (UKIP – sympathetic – in your deepest
dreams !!! They are more likely to hang us !!).
You are representing a single issue campaign, but there is benefit in spreading across to other issues
such as freedom of speech and environmental issues too.
Also the issue of state v. private – don’t we want cannabis controlled by the government directly, making it
a state endeavour – ?
Private enterprise invariably rnds up making money for the bosses of these companies while the
empleyees and the customers get a raw deal.

*
Ultimately I think it is a good idea to run, although it will obviously involve a lot of work, whether or not
everyone’s time would be better placed elsewhere I am not sure, I’m a new member. However, thinking
outside the box, why not stand in the by-election but put no effort or expenditure whatsoever into the
campaign. Clearly winning a majority of votes is an ideal and unachievable situation, but if getting the word
out about CLEAR policies and cannabis is general is the ultimate aim, would it be such a bad thing to be
lumped in with the monster raving loony party? One thing they have going for them is everyone is aware of
their existence. I know nothing of politics and I have just realised there are probably hundreds of unknown
parties which slip under the radar. My main point is, winning all the votes or no votes would possibly
increase awareness due to press coverage. Some votes would be a waste of time and money. So why not
run with a view to increase awareness rather than win? Perhaps next time round curiosity will have
circulated enough to make a difference. There are undoubtedly countless cannabis smokers all over the
country who have no knowledge of the party and this, I think, is the main flaw. All the best,

*
I think it might not be the right time yet, maybe let Clear be more established, also wait until there is a
seat in a more cannabis friendly constituency like Brighton or Bristol.

*
Doesn’t seem worth the cost of the deposit to me; especially in these economic times it’s just not worth
the risk of poaching left-leaning votes away from labour anyway. The decriminal/legal-isation will never be
possible without the support of at least one of the large parties, so it doesn’t seem worth trying to take
them on in that way.

*
Yes. I feel like it would get our name out there and that publicity at the moment is the biggest issue.

*
I was wondering, before deciding, how easy would it be to gauge what people think about the legalisation
issue already in this constituency/whether they would vote for CLEAR in a by-election? There could be
other constituencies where we are less likely to get lumped with the MRLP, where the money could be
better spent? Although I would imagine people are more likely to vote minority parties in by-elections. Just
a thought, I think if we could see what the general feeling is in this constituency first, maybe that would
help a decision to be made?

*
I think it is a good idea for you to stand as candidate. It is the only way the voice of CLEAR is going to be
heard.

I would just like to add that although I support the group, I cannot contribute any monies due to lack of
funds.

*
Personally I think you should go for. We will never make any progress in getting changes made to the law
if we are afraid to get our feet wet. Surely it would also be an invaluable information gathering exercise as
to how the general public feels about this issue. Also what needs to be done to help change the publics
mind on an issue that has a lot of negative press and ‘druggie’ stigma attached to it.

*
I don’t think it’s a good idea, I think the money could be better spent on raising publicity via the internet,
Facebook, Twitter or a dedicated iPhone app for Clear.

I am one of those people who developed psychosis after smoking cannabis, prior to my breakdown I had
worked for a number of years at Calder Hall power station as an electrician, while working their I inhaled a
lot of copper dust, & was exposed to other heavy metals such as mercury & lead, I then left and did an art
course at Blackpool college, I was doing airbrushing but wasn’t given any safety information about the
heavy metals contained in artists materials, after leaving college I was smoking cannabis & had a
breakdown with suicidal psychosis, I don’t believe my psychosis was down to the cannabis but the fact
that cannabis breached the blood brain barrier allowing the heavy metals in my system to flood my brain,
it was over 18 years before I had a heavy metal detox & by that time the damage to brain was permanent,
I take a minimum dose of mood stabilisers however since doing the detox my health is greatly improved
& I’ve eliminated the psychological & physical symptoms caused by the heavy metals, when I smoke
cannabis now all I get is the giggles & munchies.

I believe there is a conspiracy of silence about the real causes of cannabis psychosis.

Cannabis is known to absorb heavy metals, it is my belief that the small number of people who develop
psychological symptoms do so because of a toxic overload of heavy metals such as copper, mercury &
lead.

All the time throughout my illness I struggled with residual symptoms not once did my psychiatrist or gp
test me for heavy metals or offer a detox, I had to do it myself through my own research.

Most of the research into heavy metal toxicity is done in the US were heavy metal toxicity is considered a
medical emergency requiring immediate detox to avoid lasting damage.

Do some research on the Internet in particular the work of Dr Wilson (copper toxicity) Dr Andrew Hall
Cutler (mercury toxicity) there are various books & research papers online into the psychological effects of
mercury, copper & lead on the brain leading to adverse psychological symptoms

*
In principle, I think CLEAR should take the opportunity and stand. Not least to show the doubters and
naysayers that CLEAR is active. However, this would only make sense if there is a budget sufficient
enough to make a real impact in raising awareness of CLEAR. Are there any larger donors who could be
persuaded to support the campaign?

Let me know if you need any help during the campaign, should you choose to go ahead with it.

Good luck and keep up the good work!

*
I simply don’t think we’d be able to get enough votes together to make a big splash here. IT would be
awesome if it was possible, but I just don’t think there will be enough people willing to vote for a single
issue party in a marginal seat, where they then risk their desired candidate missing the seat.

*
I think that overall you would have nothing to lose by standing and, if you can raise sufficient funds and
public awareness, it would be good to get an idea of the support there is for our cause in the Corby area,

Should CLEAR Stand In The Corby By-Election? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

What all this is about is my request to the government that they run a campaign aimed at cannabis users to encourage safer methods of use. The most obvious advice they could give to cannabis users is not to smoke with tobacco, I am asking them to run something similar to TokePure. Now it’s important to understand what I’m asking for, I am not asking for any cannabis law reform here, I am not asking even that they encourage the use of pure cannabis as such, I would settle for them to run a negative style campaign to discourage the use of tobacco with cannabis, but they won’t even do that. Why won’t they? because of boneheaded insistence on a “just say no” approach to drug use. I thought the world had long ago moved on from such madness, but it seems not.

To recap: I first wrote via my MP (Simon Wright, Libdem Norwich South) to the Home Office to suggest a toke pure style campaign back in July 2011. After a very slow turning of wheels I finally got a reply from Ann Milton of the Dept of Health – which has taken over from the Home Office for such issues – in September (read it here). As expected the reply was an emphatic “no”, simply repeating the standard issue reply they always send out which included:

Cannabis is a controlled drug under the misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects, such as the possibly of developing mental health problems, and remains a controlled drugs for good reasons. This view is based on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs 2008 report Cannabis Classification and Public Health, which is available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk (enter the document title in the search bar and follow the links)

and pointing out that Frank will be running various cannabis campaigns, but there is not to be one centred on safer use.

So I replied, explaining the very obvious reasons why getting cannabis users to drop the tobacco would be a good idea, supporting my case with reference not only to population studies of cannabis users but also to information put out by her own department. I received a reply in November (here) which contained the idiot quote of the year:

If, as Mr Williams suggests, we were to advocate that people smoke cannabis without tobacco, we would be … putting people at risk of harm.

There can be no doubt that whatever the harms cannabis may present, mixing it with a known highly addictive carcinogen is going to add greatly to those dangers. How she could write a sentence like that is frankly beyond comprehension. Clearly Anne Milton has very little idea of the issues at hand and is simply repeating the party line. I don’t believe for one moment that she is really that thick, she must be aware that she is basically lying and that I find deeply disturbing.

So I wrote back via my MP and asked for a meeting to discuss it, not really expecting a positive outcome. Today, I got a reply, I was right:

Thank you for your further letter of 15th december on behalf of your constituent Mr Derek Williams of [address] about the “Toke Pure” campaign and policy on cannabis and tobacco.

I had made it clear I was not making any comments regarding cannabis policy and that I was simply asking for a safer use campaign aimed at cannabis users, I don;t know how much clearer I could make that.

There is very little I can say in response to the points Mr Williams has raised that has not already been covered in our previous correspondence.

Except of course, she hadn’t addressed any of my points in the previous correspondence, she had only stated her official position.

The government’s position is very clear, that regardless of whether cannabis is smoked with or without tobacco, it is a harmful drug and should not be used.

Whether or not that is true, it is used by millions of people, a fact she doesn’t seem to fully appreciate

Cannabis can damage both physical and mental health and it would be irresponsible for anyone to suggest there is a “safe” way to smoke cannabis

I think what really annoys me is the apparent inability to grasp the concept of “safer”, or if you prefer, “less harmful”, or of “reducing the harm”, I had never asked her to say using pure was a “safe” way to use cannabis. This is odd though, because she does seem to understand what I’ve been trying to say:

I am not convinced of the value there would be in having a meeting to discuss this further. The Tokepure argument is clear – that people should be advised that smoking cannabis and tobacco together is more harmful than smoking cannabis without tobacco – as is the government’s position – that cannabis and tobacco, whether smoked together or separately are dangerous and should not be used.

Read that a few times, it is another astonishing sentence from the minister, are the two positions mutually exclusive? I don’t think they are, just what planet is she living on?

As previously stated the best way to minimise the harm caused by cannabis. with or without tobacco, is not to smoke it. We do not agree with Mr Williams’ view that people will not stop smoking cannabis and we are taking steps, outlined in the drug strategy, “reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery Supporting people to live a drug free life” to ensure people are better informed about the harms of using cannabis and can make the choice to not to start or to stop using cannabis.

Anne Milton

So what to make of this? The only policy this government will entertain with regards to cannabis use is to tell people to stop and they believe they can do it, really, they believe that. So these politicians have no intention of providing harm reduction information to the millions of mostly young people who chose not to listen to the simplistic message they put so much faith in. Her very own department of health has issued advice on the health effects of drugs which make it perfectly clear that tobacco is far more dangerous than cannabis in terms of lung damage and addiction, she must know that her position is indefensible.

Anne Milton is wrong, people will always be using cannabis and if she thinks otherwise she is suffering some form of delusion. In refusing to run this obvious campaign she is withholding some important health information, using political dogma as the excuse.

I respect people like Anne Milton, just not very much, that’s all.

More later.

TokePure – more Anne Milton madness - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

This may come as no surprise to those who already recognise the corrupt and unlawful relationship between the Home Office and GW Pharmaceuticals.

You can track this FOI request and review all correspondence here.

These are the Home Office’s reasons:

I have concluded that disclosing the information could damage the commercial interests of the GW Pharmaceuticals and also make them potential targets of criminal activity.

Releasing the information you have requested would not be in the public interest and I have, therefore, decided to withhold the requested information. The potential harm which would likely be caused to the company if the information were to be disclosed outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

This is my email requesting an internal review.

Dear Home Office,

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office’s handling of my FOI request ‘Details of GW Pharmaceuticals licence for production of cannabis’.

This request is refused on two grounds

1. It may damage GW Pharma’s commercial interests.

This is an absurd excuse.  GW has already been granted what is almost certainly an unlawful monopoly.  The relationship between the Home Office and GW is self-evidently corrupt and improper.  How does this square with the anti-monopoly provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002? What opportunities exist for other businesses to grow cannabis for medicine?  This licence is issued by a public authority and its terms and conditions (redacted in part if necessary) should be freely available to public scrutiny.

2. It may make GW potential targets of criminal activity.

Again, an absurd excuse.  The location of GW’s facilities are already public knowledge – at it’s headquarters in Porton Down, Wiltshire and at the Kent Science Park, Sittingbourne.

This is nothing but an excuse to prevent public scrutiny and amounts to an unlawful breach of the FOI Act 2000.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

I will not acquiesce to this disgraceful and improper conduct by the Home Office.  There are many routes open to challenge this and you can be certain that I will pursue them to the very end.

It is interesting that the US government, which maintains the same dishonest and corrupt position that cannabis has “no medicinal value” is about to issue an exclusive licence to Kannalife for the “development and sale of cannabinoid(s) and cannabidiol(s) based therapeutics as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for use and delivery in humans. ”

Home Office Refuses FOI Request Concerning GW Pharma’s Cannabis Licence - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Lord Henley

For years the Home Office has been trotting out its nonsense about cannabis.   Old timers like me can recite its standard phrases and paragraphs from memory.  There is no other way to describe its position except as dishonest.  It’s astonishing that even as governments and home secretaries come and go, the Home Office’s misinformation never changes.  It says the same things over and over again even though they fly in the face of the evidence and the facts.

CLEAR member Steve McNamara recently wrote to his MP, John  Baron.  He used the template letter on cannabis farms and received a response from Lord Henley, the Home Office minister responsible for the drugs strategy.

Click to download

Steve posted Lord Henley’s response on the CLEAR Facebook page and it seemed the ideal opportunity for me to draft a reply.  Please use all or part of this in your own correspondence.  It is a template for all cannabis campaigners that rebuts every single point of the Home Office’s stance on cannabis.

Dear Mr Baron,

Thank you for forwarding Lord Henley’s letter on to me.  It is a very unsatisfactory reply which fails to deal with the issue properly at all.

I’m afraid it is just regurgitation of very tired cliches and phrases from the Home Office that haven’t changed in years – even across different home secretaries and governments.  It takes no account of the latest scientific and medical evidence or of changes in public opinion. I have responded in detail below.  I would be grateful if you would forward my reply to Lord Henley and that you will support me in asking for a more considered response.

The figures that I quote are right up to date and come from the “Taxing the UK Cannabis Market” report¹ (TUKCM) from the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit (IDMU) published in September 2011.  IDMU is an independent and authoritative research organisation which numbers many government departments amongst its clients.  Its figures are based on official statistics and original research and can be relied upon.

We spend £500 million every year on the criminal justice system for cannabis alone.  Around three tonnes of cannabis is consumed in Britain every single day and the market is worth around £6 billion per year – all in the black economy.   Probably the most visible harm of current policy is the massive increase in cannabis farms.  In 2007 police found around 800, in 2008 they found 3000, in 2009 the figure soared to 6800.  Clearly there is a huge demand for cannabis in Britain and massive consumption.  Around three million people use it at least once per month.

What is the point of present policy?  If it is to reduce demand then it clearly doesn’t work.

Lord Henley writes that “cannabis is a harmful drug”.  Of course, this is impossible to contradict.  Even oxygen catalyses the aging process.  With respect, this statement is meaningless and its use to justify government policy is disingenuous. There is now a huge body of peer reviewed, scientific evidence which shows that cannabis is hundreds of times less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, most POM and OTC medicines and even energy drinks.  This is no justification for prohibition at all.

Lord Henley writes “It has a number of acute and chronic health effects, including dependence”.  In the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) 2008 report² which Lord Henley relies on, section 4 deals with physical harms and mentions effects on circulation, the respiratory system and reproduction.  It says the effects on circulation “do not constitute a risk in healthy adolescents or adults”, that “smoking cannabis, even when mixed with tobacco, is less likley to harm lungs than if tobacco is used alone” and that effects on the reproductive system are “uncertain”.

Section 5 deals with short term harms to mental health.  It says that cannabis “usually gives rise to pleasurable feelings” although acute intoxication can produce “short-lived” undesirable effects and that cannabis should not be used by drivers, aircraft pilots, etc.

Section 8 deals with long-term psychotic illnesses.  It says that the risk of developing schizophrenia from lifelong cannabis use in men aged 20 -24 (the age of highest risk) is about 0.002%.

Section 6 deals with dependency.  It uses data that show the prevalence of cannabis dependency at about 2.6% of the population (16 -74).  However, it says these data “almost certainly overestimate”.  Numerous other studies show that approximately 9% of cannabis users exhibit signs of mild dependence and that prevalence and withdrawal symptoms are equivalent to caffeine dependence (Hall et al 2001, Coffey et al 2002, Copeland et al 2004, DSM-IV)

None of these acute and chronic health effects, nor the data on dependency can possibly justify prohibition unless we also want to prohibit coffee.

However, more up to date government data on cannabis harms are now available.  In August 2011, the Department of Health (DOH) published “A summary of the health harms of drugs”³.

Section 5.1 lists the “acute adverse effects associated with the use of cannabis”.  By any standards these are relatively trivial and mostly amount to the effects that people deliberately seek by using cannabis.

Section 5.2 lists the “chronic adverse effects associated with the use of cannabis”.  Throughout these refer to “no conclusive evidence” or “no evidence” or “evidence is limited” or “may” or “might”.

I suggest that these latest data deserve close attention. They show very clearly just how few and how minor are the acute and chronic health effects of cannabis.

While Lord Henley relies on the advice of the ACMD and its 2008 report, in fact he picks and chooses which of the report’s conclusions he prefers.  The report actually recommended that cannabis should remain in class C, which the government ignored, and said that “criminal justice measures…will have only a limited effect on usage” and urged the government to adopt “a public health strategy” which advice the government also ignored and in fact did precisely the opposite.

However, Lord Henley then writes that “public health…is the key issue on which the law is based”.  This is incorrect. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is explicit in that it seeks to limit the “social harm” caused by drugs.  Health is not even mentioned.  If, as Lord Henley writes, “the government must balance the rights of individuals and the greater public health and welfare considerations”, how, in a free society, can these demonstrably very minor considerations possibly outweigh individual rights?

Lord Henley writes “Legalisation will not address the risk factors which lead individuals to misuse drugs”.  I would be grateful if you would ask him to clarify this as I can fathom no sense in it at all.  Clearly, according to both the ACMD and the DOH, individuals can use cannabis relatively safely.  “Misuse” means what?  Where is the provision for safe and responsible use?

Lord Henley goes on “…nor the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes…” but the evidence clearly shows that cannabis dependency is about as prevalent and harmful as caffeine dependency.  Surely, Lord Henley is confusing cannabis with other far more harmful and addictive drugs?

Lord Henley then suggests a range of costs that a regulated supply of cannabis would incur and implies that these would outweigh any income from tax revenue.  In fact, TUKCM makes a very detailed and erudite estimate of all costs and shows that such a system could produce a surplus to the UK exchequer of up to £9.5 billion per annum.  It is absolutely clear that Lord Henley’s claims are speculative and bear no relation to the evidence.

Lord Henley then suggests that legalising cannabis would lead to increased “crimes and anti-social behaviour committed under the influence” but this is again in contradiction to the evidence.  Section 9.3 to 9.5 of the ACMD 2008 report shows that there is no evidence of this.  Recent research from the US shows that where a regulated supply of cannabis is available crime and anti-social behaviour actually reduces in the vicinity of outlets (Chang, Jacobson et al 2011. Rand Corp) and that road traffic fatalities are reduced as a consequence of reduced alcohol consumption (Anderson, Rees et al 2011. IZA)

Finally, Lord Henley claims a “focus on evidence and outcomes in drug policy” when, as I have shown, the reverse is the case.

Lord Henley’s response simply does not stand up to scrutiny.  His claims of harmful health and other effects are not supported by the evidence.

I am particularly concerned that this policy is preventing access to cannabis by those who need it as medicine.  There are now literally hundreds of peer reviewed, scientific studies that prove the efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of MS, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia, spinal injury and a wide range of other conditions⁴.

The Home Office repeatedly states “there is no medicinal value” in cannabis but it has granted a unique licence to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes per year for the production of its medicine Sativex.  Currently this is approved for the treatment of spasticity in MS and is pending approval for use for cancer pain, neuropathic pain, arthritis, bladder dysfunction, diabetes, anorexia, chemotherapy side effects, epilepsy and psychiatric disorders.

Clearly, the Home Office’s position on the medicinal use of cannabis is absurd and unsustainable but for individuals in pain, suffering and disability it amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment.

Sativex is a highly concentrated form of skunk cannabis containing 51% THC.  In the context of Lord Henley’s concerns about the health effects of cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals recently announced the results of phase III trials stating “the tolerability profile of this medicine is favourable, with limited relevant adverse effects and – particularly reassuring – the drug does not appear to lead to withdrawal effects if patients suddenly stop using it.”

On public opinion, a poll last year commissioned by the Liberal Democrats showed that 70% of all adults are in favour of legal regulation of cannabis.  Recent online polls by the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail show support for regulation in excess of 90% (These are self -selecting of interested parties only but they are useful indicators.)

Given the cost of present policy and the scientific and medical evidence about cannabis, it makes no sense at all to continue on our present course.  The taxpayer’s money that we are wasting, the billions with which we are sustaining organised crime, the massive damage that illegal cannabis farms are causing to communities and the complete failure of the law to prevent children using cannabis, when is Lord Henley going to change course?

Everyone wants to see the harms associated with cannabis minimised. Right now there is far more harm caused by prohibition than by cannabis itself and we are allowing hundreds of thousands of people to persist in pain, suffering and disability when a safe, effective and inexpensive medicine is available.

As requested, please forward this reply to Lord Henley and ask him for a proper response. I wonder, in fact, whether you might be able to arrange a meeting with him?  I am a member of the Cannabis Law Reform party known as CLEAR.  It would be very helpful if you could arrange for a face to face meeting at which this important subject could be properly discussed.

Yours sincerely,

Steve McNamara

Sources:

1. Taxing the UK Cannabis Market, IDMU 2011 http://clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf

2. Cannabis: Classification and Public Health, ACMD 2008 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol-drugs/drugs/acmd1/acmd-cannabis-report-2008

3. A summary of the health harms of drugs, DOH 2011 http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/healthharmsfinal-v1.pdf

4. Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids. A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 — 2011, NORML 2011 http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana

A Response To Lord Henley Of the Home Office Concerning Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

In February on YouTube, David Cameron said cannabis is:

1.”incredibly damaging”

2. “very, very toxic”

3. “and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems”

And then, with regard to medicinal cannabis, he said:

4. “That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.”

This week on YouTube, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor was asked two questions:

Q. What is your opinion regarding the demand to substitute the existing black market for cannabis by a regulated market restricted to adults and with a quality control (including THC content), and use the tax money earned for increased preventative measures?

A. I do not agree with that. I think, we have made exceptions in very specific cases. However, we should not legalise cannabis in general. Of course the question is: Is overall prohibition a reason of the black market?; one could say that. On the other hand, legalizing it would lower the threshold for use even more, and we do consider the side-effects of cannabis so dangerous that this should not be done.  After all, there are two million cannabis users and that is already way too many, I think. Thus I tend to, or it is in my opinion, not to legalise it in general.

Q. Now, there are two million users or buyers of cannabis. However, there are many times more number of people consuming alcohol and tobacco, of course. The latter is taxed and thus integrated into our normal society. Why is there this difference? Is there a historical precedent, or can this be justified — by whatever means — by applying plausible facts?

A. We think of cannabis as a drug, in accordance with international opinions. This means that even consuming small amounts can lead to very severe dependence. With alcohol or cigarettes however, sensibly limited consumption does not bear the risk of immediate addictiveness as this is
the case with cannabis according to our opinion. With alcohol there surely is an element of a tradition. However, enjoyed in moderation, as supplement to a meal for example, alcohol is not something that causes immediate dependence. Still, there is a great need for prevention and information in this matter.

Did they both go on the same DEA misinformation course? Do they think we’re stupid?

They both speak untruths. What they say about cannabis is factually incorrect. The statements about damage, toxicity, mental health problems, danger and dependence are all absolute nonsense. They are false and easily disproved. Cameron’s words about the availability of medicinal cannabis are a cynical deception. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

What this shows is that both Cameron and Merkel hold the people of Britain and Germany in the deepest contempt. They both lie with impunity and with reckless disregard for their duty. They each commit an act of treachery to their country by their dishonesty and deception. Clearly this is a joint enterprise. They conspire with the United States government to deceive and misinform their electorates. They are charlatans and fraudsters.

What we should really be worried about is how far this extends. They care not one jot for the truth about cannabis, for criminalising millions of citizens, wasting billions in taxpayers funds, nor for denying millions more safe and effective relief from pain, suffering and disability.

What about the economy, defence, health care, social services, Iran, China, Africa, climate change, any other policy you care to think about?

What lies, deceit and misinformation are we subject to on a daily basis? Why do we trust these dishonest, self-serving tyrants at all?

The access to truth that the internet provides and has seen the dictators of the Arab world overthrown has work yet to do. Either the leaders of the western world must face up to reality and put aside their dishonesty or they must start to repress and misinform us even more.

The euro crisis, the impending US attack on Iran, the brutalisation of Gaza, the wider “war on drugs” and CIA-run trade in heroin and cocaine. The unstable nuclear state of Pakistan.

Never has the world been so ripe for revolution and war.

Cameron And Merkel, Untruths And Deception. How Their Lies About Cannabis Reveal The Truth About Them - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Comment

I think that this a hugely significant  move, particularly the reference to the Global Commission on Drug Policy as the very first item.

It proves that all the campaigning has had an effect, that we were not wasting our time.   Everyone who has worked on and supported the CLEAR campaign deserves their share of credit for this, as do all the other drug law reform organisations.

This is the way that change happens.  If the committee comes out with the right sort of recommendations it will give the government the opportunity to change course and save face.  That is what matters to our political leaders more than anything else.

Naturally, I shall prepare a submission from CLEAR and I very much hope to be able to give evidence.

We are making progress!

Home Affairs Committee Launches New Inquiry Into Drugs - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Originally published on politics.co.uk, 21-11-11

The Unexpurgated Version!

In the mid 1930s, after the end of alcohol prohibition, Harry Anslinger, former assistant commissioner at the Bureau of Prohibition was settling into his exciting new job as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and working on his next campaign.

“This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with negroes, entertainers and any others.” he wrote in one of Randolph Hearst’s newspapers.  Hearst was behind the organised campaign against cannabis hemp, then one of America’s most successful crops, by timber, oil and paper interests.  The strategy was to slur the plant with the racist term “marijuana”, demonise it, outlaw it and wipe it out.

Come forward about 80 years to the present day.  In the US there is the White House drugs czar Gil Kerlikowske and the head of the DEA, Michelle Leonhart.  In Britain we have James Brokenshire, the Home Office minister.  These people are faithful in style and message to their role model Anslinger.  They use arguments and propaganda of exactly the same type and value but adjusted to politically correct 2011 terms. Their weapon is deceit and their strategy is intransigence. The prejudice, discrimination and media scaremongering continues.  As Anslinger had Randolph Hearst’s media empire, so Brokenshire has the Daily Mail.

James Broken...... (complete as desired)

The Mail came out all guns blazing last week in response to the Global Initiative on Drug Policy Reform and the ex-head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller,  calling for legal regulation.  Despite the furious propaganda war it has waged against cannabis and cannabis users the issue won’t go away.  Why?  Because millions of British citizens regularly use and enjoy cannabis with no ill effects and many find it of enormous therapeutic benefit for conditions such as chronic pain, MS and Crohn’s disease.  Also, because this war on cannabis is just another war on people.  It is futile, expensive and causes far more harm than it prevents.  It has created the modern phenomenon of rented property being destroyed, electricity being stolen with human trafficked gardeners and intensive production of high potency cannabis.

Buffoon

For forty years the Daily Mail has been running its malevolent, systematic campaign of misinformation and false science.  So successful has it been that it has had both the present and the former prime minister repeating its untruths like faithful disciples.  Gordon Brown and Paul Dacre conspiring together to come out with the “skunk is lethal” buffoonery in 2008 is one of the most blatant examples of improper collusion between government and media. In March this year, in a YouTube Al Jazeera interview, David Cameron made a series of statements about cannabis that are absolutely false which despite repeated polite requests he has done nothing to correct. Even more astonishing is the way the Mail has brought its competitors along with it.  Not just tabloids, even The Independent, which had made a noble and courageous stand for a rational policy back in 1997 was duped 10 years later into its famous “Cannabis, An Apology” front page.

The Daily Mail In Disguise

Duped is exactly the right word.  Amongst a torrent of sensationalist claims there was “skunk cannabis is 25 times stronger”, “more than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction”, that there was “growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis”.  All presented in accordance with the Daily Mail stylesheet.  This year, the Independent on Sunday’s chief political commentator, John Rentoul, wrote “It is a bad thing that the drugs business is in the hands of criminals. My view is that it would be a worse thing if it were legalised, and regulated or administered by the government.” It is astonishing that a man who takes such an irrational and irresponsible position should be given a platform for such views.

All of The Independent’s claims were false.  The truth is that cannabis today is on average about two to three times stronger than it used to be, about 750 people each year are admitted to hospital for cannabis (while 3000 are admitted for peanuts) and there is no proof at all of a causal link between cannabis and psychosis, only of correlation and increase in risk – but the increase is far greater for alcohol and tobacco use, even for energy drinks.  Also alcohol is clearly proven actually to cause psychosis in around 1% of users.

The best evidence about cannabis and psychosis is a review of all published research (Hickman et al 2009) so, by definition, not cherry picked.  It shows that, although there is no proof of causation, the risk of a correlation between lifetime cannabis use and a single psychotic episode is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

High Priest Of Propaganda

The Daily Mail’s campaign has become self-perpetuating.  Its high priest was chosen as Professor Sir Robin Murray at the church of the Institute of Psychiatry.  Science is usually about dispassionate analysis of evidence but Sir Robin is a very active anti-cannabis campaigner.  In 2005 he found what he thought was his holy grail, he was a co-author on a paper which postulated a theory about a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene.  This was reported as meaning that 25% of young people who used cannabis would go on to develop psychosis.

This single piece of research, which was only ever a theory, has been at the centre of all the Reefer Madness scare stories of the last six years. The Daily Mail and Sir Robin promote it  with vigour, it is the foundation of Mary Brett’s Cannabis Skunk Sense campaign and of the deeply irresponsible hysteria from Charles Walker MP, who even goes so far as to say that cocaine is safer than cannabis.

What none of these mischievous propagandists will tell you is that three further studies have been published since, the most recent just two months ago, that disprove the COMT gene cannabis theory completely.

But it is much more than mischief. This mendacious campaign has criminalised millions of citizens, worldwide tens of thousands have been killed and millions more denied safe, effective and inexpensive relief from a wide range of diseases and conditions.  What was originally driven by oil, timber and paper interests is now driven by Big Booze and Big Pharma.  The first is terrified of a much safer, non-addictive, non-toxic alternative to its popular poison.  The second is desperately trying to patent new varieties, extracts and components of the plant in the knowledge that modern science now proves that cannabis is as close to a panacea as possible. Only discovered in 1988, we now know that the endocannabinoid system is fundamental to all aspects of life.  Endocannabinoid deficiency is now being postulated as the fundamental cause of cancers, MS, fibromyalgia and many other conditions.  The only natural source of cannabinoids outside the body is the cannabis plant.  No wonder that 100 years ago more than half of all medicines in the British pharmacopeia contained cannabis.

The Mendacious Paul Dacre

The Daily Mail’s campaign has been remarkably successful.  Make no mistake, virtually all of the reefer madness can be traced back to it.  Other newspapers have followed its lead.  Even police officers and members of the judiciary declare as facts what are actually Daily Mail scare stories. Funding for cannabis research is most easily available if a scientist subscribes to the Daily Mail agenda.  The truth and the scientific evidence have been corrupted.  Irrational prejudice has been promoted and swallowed whole by many who should know far better.  It is a bandwagon that many have chosen to jump on.

What is the truth about cannabis?  Another myth is that there is disagreement amongst scientists.  This isn’t the case.  All the evidence points in the same direction – that cannabis use does increase the risk of psychosis and that the risk is greater at a younger age. This is meaningless though unless it is placed in context and compared with the risk from other activities.  Then it is clear that, relatively speaking, cannabis is very safe.

Professor Les Iversen. "Cannabis is safe"

The bizarre truth is that Professor Les Iversen, the government’s chief drugs advisor, is on the record saying this again and again but the Daily Mail doesn’t print it and the government ignores it, only accepting the advice it chooses to.  Professor Iversen is also a long time advocate of the medicinal use of cannabis but the government continues with its inane position that “there is no medicinal value” in cannabis. Simultaneously, the Home Office has granted a unique monopoly licence to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes of cannabis a year for medicinal use.  You really couldn’t make it up, could you?

Just last month GW announced the results of clinical trials which show that its super-strong, super-concentrated, 51% THC skunk cannabis medicine Sativex has “…limited relevant adverse effects and – particularly reassuring – the drug does not appear to lead to withdrawal effects if patients suddenly stop using it.” – a far cry from the usual hysteria about psychosis and addiction.

There is a furore in the US over medical marijuana.  The DEA and the massive forces of prohibition see their business coming to an end.  They are fighting back furiously but ultimately they cannot frustrate the declared will of the people.  77% of of all Americans now favour legalising medical marijuana on a federal level.  16 states have already done so.  The market is predicted to be worth nearly $10 billion within a few years.

Last week Switzerland announced that cultivating four plants per person would no longer be an offence.  It’s one plant in Belgium, five plants in Holland and they’re even less strict in Italy and Spain. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are reforming their laws.  In Britain, cannabis production is regularly treated more severely than paedophilia or violent assault.  Just a few plants can get you more than a year in prison.  There is a brutal and disproportionate crackdown in Sheffield at the moment led by Judge Alan Goldsack QC and the South Yorkshire police.  Both the judge and police officers are on the record in local media spouting false science and encouraging hatred of cannabis users.

Medicinal cannabis is available all over Europe except Britain and France.  Residents of other European countries, prescribed cannabis by their doctor can bring it to Britain and use it without restriction under the protection of the Schengen Agreement.  A British resident would risk jail. The Daily Mail’s campaign amounts to a hate crime against cannabis users.  The Press Complaints Commission has proved itself incapable of correcting even blatant falsification of scientific evidence.  More than a million people in Britain now have a criminal record for cannabis.  According to independent research, every year our government gifts up to £9.5 billion to organised crime rather than adopting the safer, more responsible policy of tax and regulate (Taxing the UK Cannabis Market, IDMU 2011).

All these factors are combining to make change urgent and imminent.  We are witnessing the death throes of prohibition while its advocates make a desperate and frantic last stand, their final frenzy.

There is one huge obstacle left to overcome.  How can our cowardly political leaders find a way to save face while reversing the dreadful policy they have supported for so long?  If any issue exposes the hypocrisy and dishonesty of politicians and the way that the media has an improper influence, then it is cannabis.  We have to find a way to let them off the hook.

Miracle

In years to come, the attitudes that now prevail towards people that choose cannabis will be as politically incorrect as racism, homophobia or denying women the vote.  Cannabis is one of God’s greatest gifts with which mankind has had a symbiotic relationship since the dawn of time.  The prohibition experiment of the last 80 years has been a disaster.  A rational approach will bring enormous benefits to our country, save billions in wasted expenditure, create thousands of new jobs, cut crime and disorder, provide tremendously safe and effective relief to millions in pain and disability.  The time has come to embrace cannabis as the miraculous plant that it is.

Reefer Madness In A Final Frenzy - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter! (Part 2)

Cameron On Cannabis Part 3

Cameron On Cannabis Part 4

Cameron On Cannabis Part 5

Cameron On Cannabis Part 6

Cameron On Cannabis Part 7

Cameron On Cannabis Part 8

I have written to Mr Cameron again today.  I have also sent a file of all my correspondence to Paul Flynn MP who has agreed to write to Mr Cameron asking why in a period of nine months he has not seen fit to reply to me.

Dear Mr Cameron,

Your failure to respond to my seven letters since February (copies attached) about the untruths you spoke about cannabis is more than just rude.  It now amounts to a denial of democracy.  It also convinces me that you knew full well that what you said in your YouTube Al Jazeera interview was untrue and you were in fact knowingly and deliberately lying.  What other conclusion do you expect any reasonable person to draw from your failure to correct these untruths?

Similarly, the arrogant and dismissive replies that hundreds of my members receive from the Home Office either directly or via their MPs about cannabis, particularly medicinal use, are insulting in their refusal to consider any representations or arguments.  Your ministers and their civil servants trot out repetitive and facile standard paragraphs that demean the entire democratic process and reveal a corrupt and dishonourable intent not to listen or consider what British citizens have to say.

This arrogance demonstrates the appalling conceit of your government.  When you deny people their right to be heard, you must expect them to adopt other tactics.  You are in fact inciting people towards non-peaceful action.  There is no excuse for your conduct.  You are not in office to pursue your goals without regard to the people.  Your first responsibility is to serve the people and you are failing dismally to do so.

Your government is characterised by this arrogance and aloofness more so than any I can remember in my lifetime and not just on the issue of cannabis.  You are hopelessly out of touch with what the people of Britain want from their government and deluded in your belief that locked away in your ivory towers that you will escape the consequences of your actions.

On a personal note, I have voted Tory all my life but your government has turned me away as never before.  It is nothing to do with the economic reality.  It is about how you as part of the ruling oligarchy have stolen our democratic rights.  You and your ministers seem to have no interest in the people at all, only in your own ambition.

Reluctantly I conclude that writing to you or any minister is simply a waste of time and that is why, unless I get a reasonable response, this will be my last letter to you.  Instead we will turn to more direct forms of action.

Your government is only different from the governments of Syria and Iran by degree.  You oppress, and repress citizens in exactly the same way although not yet with the same degree of violence.

However, this is the direction you are moving.  If you do not respect democracy and listen to people’s concerns, I believe you will provoke more violence on the streets.

Will you please now respond to my correspondence appropriately?  Please will you or one of your ministers arrange to meet with me?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

Cameron On Cannabis Part 9 - 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

For those not familiar with it, Granny’s List is the most remarkable reference list of sources relating to information on medicinal cannabis.  It now runs to an incredible 543 pages.

Of course, according to the UK and US governments, cannabis has no medicinal value so those 543 pages must be nothing but nonsense, mustn’t they?

You can download Granny’s List here.

Granny’s List Updated - 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

By Colin Preece

Chris Huhne has said his electricity white paper and renewables proposals of July 2011 add up to the greatest transformation of energy since the privatisation of the energy industry.

This half hearted white paper lacks the vision of community development at a local level, nationally.  Huhne however, is intent on remaining silent concerning the sustainable power potential of cannabis hemp.

The need is clear for a sustainable, zero carbon hemp crop to be grown in abundance where hemp can be processed into potentially zero carbon power.  Currently six power plants could burn hemp for power in the UK.  Only one has ever operated in the black.  Hard pressed farmers within a 50 mile radius of these plants could be growing hemp and be reaping an extra annual income.  Ten hemp seeds could be given away at garden centres to educated gardeners and at the end of the growing season, collection points could be provided for transportation to power plants. Schools and parks could be utilised, educating our children in the whole cannabis hemp truth, from its 8000 year old history, its biology, physics and chemistry, through to the farce that is prohibition and the crime prohibition has always caused, proving politicians learn nothing from history. Schools and parks could become local collection points.  There is a need for the nation to be enlightened and the documentary….WHEN WE GROW, must be televised on all terrestial channels.

Huhne’s ambition for power reform is said to be transformative and it is also said to include some sensible regulatory measures, proving the energy and climate department (DECC) does not share in the deregulatory zeal that dominates several other departments (including DEFRA).

UK energy policy over recent decades shows political ambition has never really led to significant change.  Regular speeches from politicians extolling renewables and numerous plans still leave the UK third from bottom in the European league table of energy from renewable sources. The EU fails miserably in informing European citizens on the attributes of cannabis hemp.  For what they are worth, the rudimentary plans, in current jargon, the roadmaps, need delivery, which will be costly.

Some commentators say: the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments appear serious in intent. However the potential role of local government and local community awareness is overlooked in DECC’s publications.  Elsewhere in Europe and also in parts of North America local government has led to only a limited energy transformation.

Electricity Market Reform

The electricity market reform has four key measures (ENDs Report, July 2011).

The first, a feed-in tariff contract for difference, involves a mechanism to provide low-carbon electricity generators with long-term contracts and guaranteed prices.  This insulates the low carbon generator from very low wholesale prices.  It is a sensible approach which will support renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and new nuclear.   However hemp is a renewable, sustainable crop, which can be utilised for power and CCS.  CCS is also achieved in solid hemp products ranging from babies nappies to housing. In the case of new nuclear the public fear of a melt down remains and disposal of waste will be much more than a concern for future generations.

The second measure, an Emissions Performance Standard for fossil fuel power stations, has been set at a level which can be met by a new gas-fired power station without CCS.  It is debatable this level will ever really reduce carbon emissions overall.

There is however a danger that this will encourage a ‘gas rush’ which could potentially, drive up the cost of gas to the consumer. Gas stations only emit about half the greenhouse gases of coal stations per unit of electricity but they are not low-carbon enough.  Roughly, gas processing is four times as carbon-heavy as nuclear stations and 16 times as carbon-heavy as wind. The white paper states: “It is clear that fossil fuels without CCS, especially gas, will also continue to have a key role to play in the coming years.”  So fossil fuel energy without CCS, which should be standard in all fossil fuel plants, is being completely disregarded in the white paper.  Hemp grown locally, nationally, is needed in order to minimise the use of all higher carbon footprint energy sources.

The third measure, a carbon floor price, was announced in the Budget this spring.  A floor price will be more effective than the EU emissions trading scheme has been in triggering investment in new low-carbon plant according to the white paper. Nevertheless it is unlikely that a price of £30 per tonne (if Treasury target price for 2020 is reached) would be enough to channel serious investment into low-carbon options, thus making budget power plans from renewable sources far less likely.

The fourth and last key measure, capacity payments, will give money to generators simply for having capacity available, whether or not it is actually used.  This is intended to ensure that there are power stations available to keep the lights on when intermittent sources, sun or wind, generate small amounts of electric.  This will favour gas stations, since these can be turned on and off more easily than coal or nuclear stations.  Unfortunately for the consumer again the already expanded importation of liquefied gas will drive up its price to the consumer while also increasing carbon footprint in transportation.

So another dash for gas is a real danger. The present administration and the Labour government before the Con-Lib coalition gave planning consent for many new gas stations without either CCS or combined heat and power.  Is this an act of truly endeavouring to lower the UK’s carbon emissions?

There is some encouraging text in the white paper about demand-side projects such as electrical energy being allowed to bid into the capacity mechanism. DECC is also prodding Ofgem to ensure better liquidity in the market.  This could enable smaller generators and suppliers the ability to compete in the energy market.  A hemp power industry should be part of any government’s drive toward lowering the carbon emissions of not only the UK but all nations.

Renewables Roadmap

The new renewables roadmap is supposed to be an encouraging document, according to many commentators.  It begins by stating that the Government’s aim is to meet the UK’s target under the EU renewables directive, which is to get 15% of total energy (electricity, heat, transport fuel) from renewables by 2020.  This directive is far from being achievable without the utilisation of hemp and the fact some scientists say climate change (global warming) will become irreversible by 2015 makes a goal of 15% by 2020 laughable, if it was not so potentially cataclysmic.

Last year the UK generated 3.3% from renewables. Therefore a  five-fold increase in less than a decade is needed.  Hemp should be allowed to become the five fold increase, plus!  Again some commentators say the Government should be commended for sticking to the target, even though the Conservatives are far from being keen concerning EU rules and regulations and right-of-centre think tanks such as Policy Exchange are arguing the renewables target should be renegotiated and in so doing they continue to threaten the future of our children.

The document lists eight technologies.  The Con-Libs believe it will help the UK to meet the target and puts particular emphasis on offshore wind.  They favour 18 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2020. The UK currently has 1.5GW of offshore wind in operation and 2GW under construction.

The political attractions of offshore are obvious for a government which favours rural electors voting in the ballot box for them.  Wind turbines do not bode well with those that have been forced to live with them.  Fellow citizens living in rural areas do not wish to live with them yet all governments have failed to inform country folk of the versatility of hemp for the rural economy and job creation.

Offshore wind farms are more difficult and more expensive to construct than onshore ones.  £300 million has been invested for almost 300 turbines in Scotland.  This can not be considered cheap, especially when only 300 jobs were created, so what exactly is the cost of constructing 18 gigawatts of offshore electricity before 2020?

The government is setting up a task force with industry to identify ways to bring offshore costs down. An obvious starting point would be to build ships to take the turbines out and install them but the building of these ships would cause there to be high emissions in construction, thus minimising the benefits of them in the first place.  The ideal option would be ships constructed out of plastic processed from the hemp plant.  “There is not enough land”, rings out the shout from all opposition to hemp but there is far more land suitable for hemp cultivation globally in semi arid regions unfit for conventional crops.

Land-use planning is the main reason why the UK has done so badly so far on renewables.  In 2002, in excess of 100,000 hectares of land, unfit for conventional crops but suitable for hemp, lay neglected, along with 32,000 hectares of fallow land.  Hemp is a fallow field crop!

Lack of access to the electricity grid especially in mid-Wales and lack of regulatory stability puts up the cost, making development capital from investors unlikely.  However, carbonised hemp, a by product of ethanol fuel could be burnt in conventional power plants.  Although emitting carbon from plant matter, an annual cycle is in operation, taking carbon out of the system, while the plants are growing but returning that carbon back, year in year out.  Ethanol could then be used in local transport.

The SNP has done well on the electricity grid by giving permission for the construction of the Beauly-Denny line down the centre of Scotland.  The UK and Welsh governments should follow this example.  However if hemp was to be locally mass cultivated in the UK there would be no need for costly massive extensions of the grid but only a need for more ethanol plants supplying conventional coal burning power plants with carbonised hemp.  Sulphur emissions have always been a contributing factor to coal burning but with carbonised hemp there is no sulphur.

The regulatory stability of the UK has been damaged by the ongoing debate between the renewables obligation and the German approach of a Feed-in Tariff. Ed Miliband seemed to have ended this discussion when as energy secretary he accepted the two approaches could be combined: renewables obligation for large infrastructure and feed-in tariff for small.

The coalition said that it would stick with this approach but reintroduced all the regulatory instability, proposing a contract for difference approach. The roadmap does recognise the danger and proposes transitional arrangements. It is not clear these will be sufficient to deliver regulatory certainty.  The Con-Lib coalition, on a whim and a prayer, only believe transitional arrangements will address the problem.

An essential means to maximising regulatory certainty and increasing the chances of meeting the 2020 target is to avoid unnecessary delays.  All parties seem to be rowing together in the electricity market reform and implementation should be passed in Parliament through primary legislation. However there are consultations to carry out which can and often have in the past caused unnecessary delays in implementation.

The main weakness of both the renewables roadmap and the electricity market reform white paper is the lack of articulation of the potential role of local government.

In August 2010, Huhne announced that local government would be allowed to sell renewable electricity – they had previously been banned from selling electricity so they would not ‘complicate’ the privatisation of the CEGB back in the 1980s. In early July 2011 Huhne met with new electricity suppliers, including Co-Op Energy and renewable generators such as Good Energy and Ecotricity. After the meeting he said “we need more suppliers” beyond the existing “big six”.

With local government being allowed to produce renewable electricity there is an obvious resource to provide it, hemp!  Ethanol plants built in close proximity to conventional coal burning plants could provide fuel for local transport systems and the by product, carbonised plant matter of all kinds including hemp could and should be used in conventional coal burning plants.  As far as the private sector is concerned, although the providers seem to be in competition, there is always the likelihood of those providers working together, in order to keep costs to the consumer higher than they need to be, thus excessively rewarding shareholders for doing nothing other than investing.

In parts of Europe, notably Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, parts of the USA and Canada, local government has become a major player in both energy efficiency and energy supply.

Local governments, community organisations and co-operatives are achieving many admirable things.  Local opposition has been overcome because they do not have to pay shareholders and lower tariff charges enable cheaper power. UK policymakers seem to know next to nothing about these notable exceptions, in effect, making these policy makers unfit for purpose.

For six years, Chris Huhne was a member of the European Parliament and some commentators say he can not be fairly be accused of not knowing what is happening. Other DECC ministers also seem conscious that the UK has much to learn from other countries but all ministers, from the PM down, refuse to acknowledge the versatility of hemp as a sustainable biomass resource.

Plans to help UK local government become energy and climate leaders, learning the lessons of their continental and North American counterparts, are under preparation by DECC officials and will be published soon but again, hemp as a biomass resource for electricity, which could and should be locally and nationally cultivated will not even get a mention.

The meerkat in the commercial on TV says it all, with one suck of his teeth and one single word.  To neglect a biomass resource like hemp reveals our energy policy makers as just too scared to admit the whole cannabis hemp truth to a UK electorate who, through no fault of their own, have always been, ill-informed.

Simples.

An Energy White Paper With No Mention Of Hemp - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party