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

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 iniquitous DEA crackdown on medical marijuana in the past week is appalling and completely contradicts President Obama’s assurances about respect for democratic state law.

Stephen Harper, the new quasi-fascist Canadian PM, has just introduced a bill which will make the sentence for growing more than 200 cannabis plants more severe than for child rape or forced child bestiality.

In Britain, offences involving child porn, paedophilia and under age grooming are commonly treated far more leniently than growing a few plants.  Deeply prejudiced, out of touch judges are distorting science in disgustingly inaccurate and discriminatory comments in cases they are supposed to supervise with wisdom and fairness.  Let me put on record the names of those British judges who, in the past six months or so have shown themselves to be unfit to preside in any cannabis case: Judge Richard Bray, Judge Nigel Thorne, Judge Alan Goldsack and Judge Christopher Plunkett.

Anyone who faces trial on a cannabis matter in front of these men will not be treated fairly.  You must instruct your lawyers to object to them taking charge.

Amongst our politicians, David Cameron tells bare faced untruths and refuses to correct them.  Charles Walker says cocaine is safer for children than cannabis and Anne Milton, the minister for public health, receives his comments with courtesy.  The ministers in the Home Office are beneath contempt for their dishonesty and perverse administration of the law.  Our health ministers are cowards who care not one jot for those who need cannabis as medicine and simply bounce enquiries back to the Home Office.   Mary Brett, the promoter of the sham charity Cannabis Skunk Sense, deceives and dissembles about the COMT gene scare story, despite it being disproven again and again and again.  Professor Sir Robin Murray, the rabid anti-cannabis campaigner, uses his position and qualifications to endorse false scare stories and encourage misleading propaganda.

Then what do we have from the drug reform thinktanks?  More reports, more studies, different websites, more pontification about international co-operation.  I am told that calling Charles Walker and Mary Brett “prohibitionist nutters” is name calling and doesn’t help.  A couple of months ago I was told by another thinktank that my style is “too confrontational”!

Well I say it’s about time we got a whole lot angrier and provoked a lot more confrontation!  These talking shops have a vested interest in prolonging the debate.  CLEAR is a political party and we are about making change happen!  Not after another report and another study and another couple of conferences on expenses,  funded by our worthy sponsors.  We want to see reform now!  We want to see an end to injustice now, not when we’ve dabbled and debated and discussed for years longer.

That’s why we need your support.   We need your money.  Democracy is no longer free in Britain.  All sorts of financial obstacles are placed in our way.  CLEAR needs donations now to continue the campaign, to take the Cannabis Truth roadshow all over the country.

We need a portable PA system.  We need a budget of around £300 for each roadshow venue, for travelling and overnight stays.  We need funding to print more leaflets, stickers, to get a T-shirt and merchandise business underway.

In return I promise you that CLEAR is not going to retreat.  We are not going to be subjugated, neither by the prohibitionists nor by the appeasers who pretend to be on our side but instead work for their own self-serving interests.    With your support we are moving towards a campaign of direct action that will overturn the inertia that so many buy into.

Think Greenpeace and responsible if dramatic protest combined with remorseless action through the courts.  This is where CLEAR is going with your help.  Please go to the CLEAR home page and click on the donate button now!

It’s Time To Get Angry! - 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

With the assistance of the Labour MP Paul Flynn, we have been able to book the Jubilee Room, just off the 900 year old Westminster Hall, right in the heart of the Houses of Parliament.  This is as big an opportunity to get our message across as the British cannabis campaign has ever enjoyed.

IDMU is an authoritative and universally respected source of expert information on drugs.  It has previously been commissioned by the UK government, the BBC and has provided expert reports for defence and prosecution in the UK courts.  The accuracy and credibility of its work is beyond doubt.

The report itself is embargoed until 2.00pm on 14th September.  At that time it will be published on this website and available in hard copy at the press conference.  Its conclusions are quite astonishing and if drugs policy were based on facts and evidence it should cause the government to sweep away the present disastrous regime. It is clear that a tax and regulate policy would massively reduce all health and social harms, protect children, eliminate illegal “cannabis factories” and contribute billions in new revenue to the exchequer.

The press conference will be chaired by Peter Reynolds.  We hope to have cross party support as well as speakers from IDMU, science, medicine and law enforcement.  The main objective of the conference is to apprise the media of the extraordinary range of benefits of a tax and regulate policy on cannabis.  Government ministers, MPs and senior civil servants  are also invited.  Anyone may attend but space is limited and you should arrive at least 30 minutes early in order to clear security.

This is, we believe, a very significant step forward in the campaign for a safer, more responsible and intelligent policy on cannabis.

Watch this space for details of speakers and those attending.

Press Conference – “Taxing The UK Cannabis Market” - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

These people really do not understand how cannabis has a transformational effect on some peope’s lives.  They may have read about the endocannabinoid system but they don’t seem to have quite understood how important we now know it is to good health.

The central nervous system, the immune system, cardiovascular system, reproductive system, gastrointestinal and urinary tracts all contain cannabinoid receptors and are regulated by cannabinoids.  People who suffer from MS or Crohn’s or ME may well be suffering from an endocannabinoid deficiency.  We know that endocannabnoid production declines as we age, a process that may play an important role in the development of age-related and degenerative diseases such as atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease, arthritis, osteoporosis and possibly a number of cancers as well as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

So it is entirely logical that endocannabinoid levels should be supplemented with other sources of cannabinoids and the only source outside the human body is the cannabis plant.  For some people, such as my friend, this is the difference between a life worth living and a life of misery, disability and pain.

She was in despair because she really believed that if she went to her doctor, her consultant, her MP and through him to minsters of health and our leaders then eventually the logic and overwhemlming evidence of her case would be heard.  She believed that because she lives in Britain, a land of justice and freedom and truth, those in power, in a system she trusts, would respond properly to her needs.

I was sad but not surprised to see her so disillusioned.  She had been reading the stories of others who have come before her, some of whom have now passed, who have experienced the same hope and then been crushed by spineless, careless and weak politicians.  Even those who have some reforming instinct are restrained by the cold hand of prohibition which lurks in the Home Office.  In the corridors of Marsham Street there is a malevolent, bigoted and stubborn group that denies any progress even in the face of cast iron proof.

Even while the government’s chief drugs advisor is a passionate advocate of medicinal cannabis, the government’s ludicrous, official line is that it has no medicinal benefits.  Our prime minister, who has himself indulged recreationally, who only recently advocated “radical options” on cannabis, now speaks blatant untruths and promotes misinformation.  In his footsteps follow utter fools like Nadine Dorries, blathering nonsense about issues clearly far beyond her understanding and Charles “Cocaine For Kids” Walker, possibly the most dangerous speaker in the drugs debate in Britain ever.

Baroness Browning, the new drugs minister, has now shown herself to be just another mindless puppet of prohibition.  She fails to respond to correspondence and when pressed just repeats the tired, inane and false Home Office gibberish of old.

We need to do more than just seek to persuade.  It is evident from not just the government’s but all our politicans’ pathetic, non-existent response to the Global Commission’s initiative, that we are led by donkeys and cheated by monkeys.  Our leaders are irresponsible and inadequate.  We must force their hand.

We need to take the issue of the denial of medicinal cannabis before the courts.  The process is clear.  I first set it out in Legal Opportunities For Medicinal Cannabis Users.  It is now part of CLEAR’s strategy.  The campaign is Legal Remedies.  The time is NOW!

If you are a medicinal user of cannabis, please join with us.  We will aim to co-ordinate a doctor’s prescription for you for Bedrocan (medicinal cannabis produced under the auspices of the Dutch government).  We will assist you in applying to the Home Office for an import licence to obtain your medicine.   We will then seek to bring an action for judicial review in the High Court of the refusal to issue such licences.  The more that join together in this, the  more chance we have of success.

I cannot promise quick results.  Your own GP has “prescriber rights” which fully entitle him or her to write you out a prescription for Bedrocan today – but few are prepared to do so.  This may mean that we need to organise an overseas trip to Holland, Belgium, Spain or Italy where we can find doctors who will help.  We will need to do this in a way that enables even the most disabled to travel.  We may then need to raise a great deal of money to hire lawyers of the calibre we need.

What I can promise is that I and all those involved in CLEAR and all its resources will concentrate on this and that if we follow it all the way through, we have a good chance of success.

Please step forward in your own and others’ interests.  Register to be part of this by sending an email to legalremedies@clear-uk.org.   Include your name, email address, telephone number and the condition you treat with cannabis.  It is the first step on a long but worthwhile journey.

Legal Remedies – A Call To Action. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

There’s no need for a change in the law.

If the noble Baroness would don her thinking cap for a few moments, I am sure she we would see that this could only be a good thing.  Not only would a great deal of suffering be alleviated safely and inexpensively but surely she, her ladyship, could only earn credit for such a wise and humane intervention?

The same is true of even more fundamental reform.  We need to give our honourable ministers a way out of the corner they have boxed themslves into.  I even let them off the hook a little.   I suspect a deep seated “tradition” in the Home Office, reinforced over parliaments and generations by a select group of bigoted, malevolent civil servants who may well be in receipt of bribes.  I can think of no other reason why such an idiotic, irrational policy should persist – across governments, regardless of parties.  The words are always the same Home Office doublespeak.

There’s no need for a change in the law.

Ministers merely have to readjust the classification and regulation of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in accordance with evidence as the Act requires them so to do.  I am certain that the Advisory Council would advise on an appropriate, evidence-based system of licensing and regulation which would be entirely self-financing and become a source of new revenue for the Treasury instead of funding organised crime.

There’s no need for a change in the law.

The Sentencing Council itself proposed in its recent drug sentencing guidelines that “two or three plants grown for personal use” should attract a sentence betweene a discharge and a low level community order.  That’s pretty much akin to decriminalisation.  Be discreet, keep your nose clean and we won’t be interested.

There’s no need for a change in the law.

We need to give the prohibitionists an easy way to stand down.  Let’s do that.  Let’s take back each little step as we can.  Let’s keep the pressure on.  We’re winning.

We’re Not Asking For A Change In The Law - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Charles Walker

Charles Walker, Tory MP for Broxbourne proposed his adjournment debate in the House of Commons on the evening of Thursday, 9th June 2011.  He was answered by Anne Milton, minister of state for public health. A transcript of the debate is here.

Dear Mr Walker,

I was in the public gallery of the House of Commons on Thursday evening when you rose to speak on your adjournment debate, “Cannabis and Psychosis (Young People)”.

The COMT gene/dopamine theory which suggested that one in four would have a genetic disposition to psychosis if they used cannabis was disproved in 2007 by a team led by Dr Stanley Zammit, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject.  It was published in the  British Journal of Psychiatry:  http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/191/5/402.  Why have you overlooked this crucial evidence which completely refutes the entire basis of your absurd scaremongering about cannabis?

You are correct that if cannabis use has a causal effect on psychosis (which is not proven), then children and young people are the group most at risk.  However you seem to have an absolutely colossal blind spot here.  Prohibition does not work.  It provides no control or protection for children or the vulnerable at all.  The only ID that a dealer asks for is a £20 note.  What is absolutely vital for the safety of our children is that the huge, multi-billion pound cannabis market in Britain should be brought under proper control and regulation.  The facts are that wherever cannabis has been brought under some sort of regulated control, consumption and particularly use by children has fallen.

Facts were almost completely absent from your speech.  In fact I think we would have to go back to witchcraft before we would find such a submission of misinformation and untruths to parliament.  It really was the most astonishing display of ignorance (a word which I do not use as an insult to you but as a precise and accurate description).  You rely on your “friend” Mary Brett but she is responsible for the distribution of more untruths about cannabis than anyone except perhaps Debra Bell and the Daily Mail.  Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) is preparing a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about Ms Brett’s charity Cannabis Skunk Sense.  It cannot be right that an organisation which promotes misinformation, untruths and distorted science should enjoy charitable status.

You prefaced your speech by saying that you are not a clinician or a scientist but that cannot excuse your gross distortion of the science.  You spoke untruths and I cannot understand why a man in your position would not check the facts.  The truth about cannabis is easily available online.

Your claim that cannabis is now six times stronger than it was in the 70s was not as ridiculous as Nadine Dorries’ suggestion of “50 times stronger” just last week.  Anne Milton underbid you slightly at just four times.  There is no proper evidence for any of these claims.  The cannabis oil available in Victorian times was 43% THC.  Hashish available in the 70s and 80s was around 20% THC.

You are correct that the balance of THC and CBD is important and that CBD has powerful anti-psychotic properties.  Prohibition has driven the criminal market to higher THC concentrations and to immature cropping before the CBD has developed.  There is an exact parallel with alcohol prohibition in the US where consumption of beer and wine fell as high strength hooch and spirits became more popular.  The balance restored itself once prohibition ended.

With your “one in four” scare story you were attempting to cherry pick evidence to support your position – even evidence that has been disproved.  I do not have to do that.  Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol conducted a systematic review of ALL the published evidence on the subject so his figures are, by definition, balanced.  He confirmed only last month that “there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis”.

Professor Lewis shows that the risk of psychosis with cannabis use  is between 0.013% and 0.003%, a correlation only: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19832786.  Similar correlation between psychosis and tobacco use is 80%-90%.  Direct proven causation of psychosis by alcohol is 1%-2% (Korsakoff’s syndrome).

Keele University also showed in a study of nearly 600,000 subjects that despite increased consumption of cannabis “the incidence and prevalence of psychosis and schizophrenia was stable or declining”: http://www.ukcia.org/research/keele_study/Assessing-the-impact-of-cannabis.pdf

These are scientific facts Mr Walker, unlike the absolute nonsense you spoke in the House.  You brought the whole of British politics and parliament into disrepute by your distortion of the truth.  It is because of people like you and Mary Brett that people of all ages in Britain trust not a word they are told by the government about drugs.  They know from their own experience that all they ever hear are lies.  The Talk to Frank service that you are so fond of is an object of ridicule and contempt amongst young people.  The fact that you seem unaware of this shows how out of touch you are.

When towards the end of your speech you said that educators “…need to be aware of the research that shows a strong causal link between skunk cannabis, psychosis and schizophrenia”, you descended into extraordinary, blatant falsehood.   There is no such research and I believe you knew that it was false when you said it.

Finally, your suggestion that alcohol or cocaine are safer for children than cannabis, has to be one of the most absurd and irresponsible  statements made by a politician anywhere, ever.   I do not see how you can possibly remain in your position having made such an utterly ridiculous and dangerous statement.  You should resign your position as an MP immediately.  You are a disgrace to parliament and to the country.

I am writing to the Deputy Speaker and to the minister, Anne Milton, about your conduct.  Such blatant distortion of the truth should not be allowed in parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

An Open Letter To Charles Walker, MP For Broxbourne - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Today Release published an ad in the Guardian which stands alongside the famous Times advertisement of 1967 as a record of the campaign against prohibition.  It was excellent work to co-ordinate the support of so many important people.  It is real progress and delivered a very powerful message because of the extraordinary list of endorsees.

Then there a was a news conference from New York, with Sir Richard Branson and the Global Commission on Drug Policy calling for an end to the war on drugs.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it on BBC , Sky, CNN , Al Jazeera or the web.

It is true that the media have lost interest.  The politicians just blank the issue. They don’t respond at all. The Home Office reaction last night to the prelimnary announcement was offensive and derisory, using the same cliches that transcend whatever government is in power.  They are the conceits of a civil service bureaucracy that stifles any reform.

What are we going to do to break this inertia?

I’ve made 16 complaints this year to the Press Complaints Commission and two complaints to the Office for Judicial Complaints about blatant untruths about cannabis.

Meanwhile, David Cameron speaks blatant untruths (in direct contradiction to things he’s said previously) and there is nothing I, nor anyone, can do about it.  My letters and the dozens of letters in support from CLEAR members are just ignored.

Mr Cameron is negilgent and irresponsible. Not just on the cannabis issue but on harmful drugs, he and his minsters are directly and personally responsible for death, misery and degradation in Britain on an horrendous scale because they fail to grasp the nettle.

Last week, a mother and daughter were sent to prison at Worcester Crown Court for 20 months for growing five cannabis plants.  Meanwhile GW Pharma grows 20 tonnes a year under a unique licence (bought with political donations) in order to make Sativex.  Why is there never any mention of Sativex users developing psychosis?  Sativex is just a tincture of cannabis. Mr Cameron says cannabis “leads to huge mental health problems”.

It is very difficult to distinguish between how Mr Cameron is failing here and, for instance, how Sharon Shoesmith failed in her duty as a director of childrens’ services at Haringey.  She was sacked for one tragic life lost.  Cameron’s failures are several orders of magnitude greater.

The failure by ministers to follow best practice and evidence and their promotion of deliberate lies and misinformation is a scandal and in any rational system of justice would be subject to challenge.  By any standard of morality the government’s failure to act amounts to criminal negligence.

It is disgusting that these confidence tricksters and charlatans are able to ignore the truth with impunity.  They maintain this deeply damaging and hugely expensive mistake with malice aforethought.  Cameron and his cronies are the real drugs gangsters.

Cameron And His Cronies Are The Real Drugs Gangsters - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Malcolm Reynolds

My father will be 78 this year.  Since 2003 he’s survived pneumonia which put him in intensive care for 13 weeks, a massive, life-threatening colectomy operation for colon cancer and  chemotherapy for lymphoma.  Now he has chronic pain from arthritis which an MRI scan has determined is the consequence of age-related deterioration of the spine and is untreatable.  It is precisely the sort of indication where medicinal cannabis could prove an ideal therapy.

I am furious to the point of rage that prohibition denies him the opportunity even to try it. And also that he has been subject to so much government misinformation and propaganda that he is genuinely frightened even to consider it.

He is a boy from the valleys made as good as it gets.  Until 1938, when the build up to war gave his father regular shifts at the Llanwern steel works, he went hungry every day. He rose to a scholarship at Oxford, became a top commercial solicitor and retired the senior partner of a firm of solictors with offices in Watford and the City. I am proud to be his son.

He has known for many years that I use cannabis.   He’s always been tolerant of it.  More recently he has seen me devote more and more of my energy to the cause.  He has been interested in the research and scientific evidence that I have explained to him but perhaps a little bemused and concerned about the passion that I have for the subject.

He is now in constant pain from his back. He cannot sit in a dining chair for more than 10 or 15 minutes and needs a hot pad continually renewed when he sits in an armchair.  His doctor has just prescribed a toxic cocktail of liver-destroying NSAIDs: two paracetamol and two ibuprofen, six times a day.

This week I took the plunge and baked him some cakes. Chocolate fudge brownies each carefully prepared to deliver the standardised medicinal dose of 0.2 g.  It provoked his fear and anger.  He was terrifed to have them in the house and retired to his bed, castigating my mother and ordering that the cakes and I should be ejected from his property.  Naturally, I respected his wishes and the cakes spent the night in my car.  The following day the CLEAR Executive Committee enjoyed them for afternoon tea.

He is my Dad and I love him. I think that a little cannabis would ease his pain. I know it couldn’t hurt him.  Instead he will suffer without even trying the remedy that I propose. I’m not going to harass him about it.  He has enough to cope with.

I blame the wickedness of prohibition. In particular, those cold hearted apparatchiks at the Home Office who, minister by minister, have imposed their cold-blooded, reptilian paralysis on drugs policy – those cowardly, science-denying, undemocratic bureaucrats who have sabotaged drug law reform at every opportunity, who have stymied every reforming instinct of every politician who has ever worked at the Home Office.  They are the kiss of death and the most corrupt and disloyal civil servants in Britain.  In their conceit and deception they deny relief to those in suffering and I hold them, every one of them, in the deepest and most profound contempt.

A Personal Story - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

“That is not the most significant medical issue in relation to cannabis. In its higher form in particular, there are significant risks to young people, such as the probable causal link to mental illness, especially psychosis and schizophrenia. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to take a tough line and ensure effective enforcement of the law on possession of cannabis?”

My email in response:

From: Peter Reynolds
To: david@davidburrowes.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:21 PM
Subject: Cannabis

Dear Mr Burrows,

Regarding your intervention concerning cannabis in the House this afternoon.

You said there is a “probable causal link” between cannabis and psychosis. This is inaccurate and misleading.  It’s a part of a political idea that is now discredited and failing.

All the experts agree that while cannabis use is a risk factor for psychosis, there is no proof at all that it causes it. The real distortion of the truth is to overlook that cannabis is much less of a risk factor than alcohol, tobacco or even energy drinks.  Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD, is on the record that cannabis is one of the “safer recreational drugs”.  In comparative terms there is no truth or justification at all in the argument you presented in the House.

Professor Glyn Lewis, universally regarded as the pre-eminent expert in analysis of all the published research said only a few weeks ago that: “it is important to note that we cannot be certain that there is a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis…96% of people can use it without any risk”.

The problem with cannabis is that it’s illegal. Prohibition creates massive harms and denies the extraordinary medicinal benefits of the plant to millions of British citizens. It also prevents proper education and treatment for those who are at risk. Authoritative new research now proves that a tax and regulate regime would boost the UK economy by at least £6 billion per annum and reduce all health and social harms.

I appreciate that you have been fed a very different story, as have so many but the evidence is now indisputable. Continuing on our present path costs us billions and causes far more harm than good.  The progressive, intelligent, pragmatic and inevitable policy is to tax and regulate.

Please could I arrange to meet with you at your convenience to present the evidence to you?  Next year, at least one state in the US is going to legalise, then common sense will roll out across the wold. This is the leading edge of policy.

I am the leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR).  I am attaching a copy of our leaflet on medicinal cannabis which is now going into nationwide distribution.  I hope you will agree to meet me soon.

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

Email To David Burrowes MP, 9th May 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Cannabis

8. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What her policy is on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. [54324]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire): We do not recognise cannabis in its raw form to have any medicinal purposes; cannabis is a harmful drug. However, Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine, has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as a safe and effective medicine for patients with multiple sclerosis.

Paul Flynn: In Canada, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Israel, Spain, Portugal and parts of the United States, patients can take medicinal cannabis in its natural form safely and legally. Why are seriously ill patients in our country, particularly those suffering the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, forced to break the law when they want to use their medicine of choice?

James Brokenshire: The advice we have received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs confirms that cannabis is a significant public health issue. I certainly sympathise with anyone suffering from a debilitating illness, but we do not condone any illicit drug taking, for whatever reason. As I have indicated, GPs may prescribe Sativex in the circumstances mentioned. That is available, and we are dealing with its regulation.

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): That is not the most significant medical issue in relation to cannabis. In its higher form in particular, there are significant risks to young people, such as the probable causal link to mental illness, especially psychosis and schizophrenia. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to take a tough line and ensure effective enforcement of the law on possession of cannabis?

James Brokenshire: I know that my hon. Friend takes these issues incredibly seriously, and has focused on drugs policy for some time. I assure him that our position is that the classification of “illegality” can influence behaviour and be a meaningful factor when people are contemplating taking drugs. That is why we do not have any proposals to change the classification of cannabis, and why we place so much importance on the current legal arrangements in ensuring we reduce supply and deal with these problems. There is no change of policy.

Cannabis Question In the House, 9th May 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party