Dishonesty is at the root of the legislative changes about to come into force concerning Sativex, the cannabis medicine produced under an unlawful licence and gifted as an unlawful monopoly, enforced with violence by armed police, to a privately owned company.

This is government corruption by statute at such a level that it should fascinate the finest legal minds in Britain.  The trickery that the Home Office has devised falsely to distinguish a proprietary cannabis extract from cannabis itself is worthy of the most devious fraudsters the world has ever seen.  Justice demands that an advocate steps forward who can demolish this Tower of Babel and cast out the money changers and thieves.

I have been writing about Sativex for around three years, since it was first approved in the UK by the  Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).  While I am the first to congratulate GW Pharmaceuticals on bringing the benefits of medicinal cannabis to market, I realised that it was scam from the beginning.  To be fair, it was a scam on the paranoid, cowardly politicians and regulators to begin with but it’s now become a scandal which shames everyone involved because it is actively causing harm and suffering to the millions who could benefit from the therapeutic qualities of cannabis, whether as an extract like Sativex or as what GW calls a ‘botanical drug substance’ – in other words, raw herbal cannabis.

Now though it has become a fraud and the two statutory instruments made on 13th March 2013 prove this conclusively. Those concerned in the conspiracy to commit this fraud are the Privy Council, the Home Secretary, the Home Office, the Department of Health, the MHRA, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and GW Pharmaceuticals.  Perhaps most disturbing of all is the failure, in our so-called democracy, for the Home Affairs select committee to hold the executive to account.  I blame Keith Vaz, its chair, for this.  He has been made fully aware of what is going on.  His management of last year’s drugs inquiry was an object lesson in spin, deception and cover up.  He deliberately ignored and evaded the views and concerns expressed in the public consultation.  Instead he grandstanded with celebrities and had no concern at all for the 95% of drug users who are non-problematic and whose lives and liberty are abused by the great, immoral evil that is prohibition.

So, I feel vindicated in the allegations I have made although it gives me no satisfaction.  There is no doubt now that the licence issued to GW Pharma to produce cannabis was unlawful and has been since at least 2003 when it entered into its first pharmaceutical licence agreement with Bayer Healthcare AG.  The Home Secretary was only ever empowered to grant such licences for “special purposes such as research”.  Clearly, since 2003, GW has been engaged in commercial exploitation of cannabis and that directly contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).  The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Amendment No. 2) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2013 corrects this but only for Sativex.

I explained the proposed re-scheduling in my articles Home Office Deception On Medicinal Cannabis and The Sativex Scandal Deepens. Corruption And Dishonesty At The Home Office back in mid-February.  It is absurd, dishonest and straight out of a script for ‘Yes Minister’. The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment No. 2) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2013 is the change in scheduling.

Sativex IS cannabis.  It is pharmacologically (if not chemically) identical to the plants from which it is made.

Dr Geoffrey Guy

Dr Geoffrey Guy, chairman of GW Pharma, boasts “We have the first approval of a plant extract drug in modern history. It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has just one.”

The MHRA has ducked and dived, side-stepped and swerved to avoid telling the truth.  I give due credit here to Laurel Bush and Chris Stevens, CLEAR members, who have backed this dishonest, taxpayer-funded agency into a corner with relentless FOI requests.  The truth is out and it has backed down completely.

Sativex IS cannabis.

The connivance falsely to distinguish it is ridiculous, corrupt and dishonest. Every other drug is defined in the regulations by a single word. Sativex takes about 75. No other drug specifies its method of delivery. No other drug is defined by its MHRA approval.

So I call on the noblest traditions of British advocacy to fight for truth and justice.  More than that, I shall be doing my utmost to hawk this story and this cause around the Inns of Court.  Someone can make a name for themselves by bringing down this ugly perversion of truth.

The last word though must go to those in pain and suffering from MS, Crohn’s, fibromyalgia, cancer, numerous chronic pain conditions, epilepsy, glaucoma, and many other conditions.  They are denied access to the medicine that they need for the purpose of political expediency and GW Pharma’s profits.  If David Cameron wasn’t in abject fear of the Fleet Street mafia and bullied by the alcohol lobby, this stupid, cruel, disgusting policy could change.

The government’s own information bulletin confirms the facts.

Sativex Re-Scheduling Demands Judicial Review - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Theresa May

Theresa May is probably the most dangerous woman in Britain.  She is responsible for our disastrous drugs policy which kills more than 120,000 people every year.

Most of those are cigarette smokers.  Depending on how exactly you define cause of death, between 8,000 and 30,000 of them are alcohol users.  There are about 1000 deaths each year due to opiates, 100 – 200 for cocaine and fewer than 100 each for speed and ecstasy.  None for cannabis. It’s worth pointing out that there are also about 1000 deaths due to paracetamol each year. Source: Drugscope.

Despite this conclusive evidence, Theresa May refuses to regulate tobacco and alcohol under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and endlessly repeats her inane mantra:

“Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous – they destroy lives and blight communities.”

But she doesn’t apply that to tobacco and alcohol.  Today it has become clear that she has sabotaged the proposal to introduce minimum unit pricing on alcohol, a measure that is conclusively proven to reduce harm.

Professor David Nutt said last year that legal regulation of cannabis could reduce alcohol consumption by up to 25%.  This would transform public health in Britain and provide massively more resources for the NHS.

Can anyone really doubt that Theresa May, many members of the cabinet and MPs are in the pocket of the alcohol industry?

Our political leaders are the most despicable hypocrites who have no real regard whatsoever for our health.  Their only concerns are political expediency and lining their own pockets. Theresa May is very possibly the worst of them all. She is engaged in actively causing harm to the people of Britain.

Theresa May Talks ‘Tough’ On Drugs But Is Weak On The Most Dangerous Drug Of All. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Jeremy Browne MP

This is the most progressive, intelligent and evidence-based drugs policy of any major UK political party.  It was passed by the Liberal Democrat party conference in September 2011.

It pre-empted the recommendations of last years HASC drugs inquiry and is in line with what is now mainstream opinion of virtually all well-informed  policymakers.  Yet now we have a Liberal Democrat drugs minister who is enforcing the cruel, dangerous and irrational drugs policy pursued by previous Labour and Tory governments.  It is a policy that actually causes harm, wastes huge amounts of taxpayers’ money and denies access to those who need cannabis as medicine.  It is a policy that by any rational evaluation is an abject failure.

What are you up to Jeremy Browne?

Conference calls for:

1. The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

2. The panel also to consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that:

a) Possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence.
b) Possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.

3. The panel also to consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

4. The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

5. The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems; these services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.

6. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to retain a majority of independent scientific and social scientific experts in its membership and no changes to drug laws be made without receiving its advice as per the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.

Source

Why Doesn’t Jeremy Browne, The LibDem Drugs Minister, Support LibDem Drugs Policy? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The mists of deception and the stench of corruption are swirling around the Home Office and GW Pharmaceuticals.

Yesterday’s ‘advice’ from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on Sativex finally reveals the council to be the propaganda tool of the government.

However many times you may have given Marsham Street the benefit of the doubt, now is the time to face facts. Since the disgraceful sacking of Professor Nutt, the ACMD has deteriorated into a sham, a rubber stamping exercise for the Home Office and the racist, cruel and failed ‘war on drugs’.  It is a subversion of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA), the statute that brought it into existence.

Those involved in it are as guilty of ‘misconduct in public office’ as any bent cop selling information to Fleet Street.  Worse than that, they are engaged in deliberately causing harm to sick and disabled people in order to secure and promote GW Pharma’s unlawful monopoly on medicinal cannabis.

Sativex is an whole plant extract of cannabis which contains all the compounds present in the plants from which it is made.  Indeed, according to Dr Geoffrey Guy, chairman of GW Pharma “It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has just one.”

There is only one scientifically accurate way to describe Sativex. It is cannabis. That is the only honest definition which can properly be used to define Sativex in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

However, this is the definition that the ACMD has recommended to the Home Office:

“A liquid formulation–

(a) containing a botanical extract of Cannabis –

(i) with a concentration of not more than 30 milligrammes of cannabidiol per millilitre, and not more than 30 milligrammes of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per millilitre,
and
(ii) where the ratio of cannabidiol to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is between 0.7 and 1.3

(b) which is dispensed through a metered dose pump as a mucosal mouth spray and

which was approved for marketing by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)”

Every other drug is defined in the regulations by a single word. No other drug specifies its method of delivery. No other drug is defined by its MHRA approval.

And the  ”metered dose pump as a mucosal mouth spray” is patented by GW Pharma so its monopoly of medicinal cannabis, already unlawful under competition law and produced under an unlawful licence, is to be enshrined in UK statute.  Where else does a privately owned enterprise enjoy such a monopoly and such statutory protection?

The schedules in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 can be seen here. There are some definitions that extend beyond a single word but only when they seek to define whole groups or type of drug.  This dishonest contrivance about Sativex is transparent.  It is a deception designed to avoid and subvert the will of parliament expressed in the MoDA.

Cannabis is a safe, very effective medicine for a wide range of conditions which can be treated by modulating the body’s endocannabinoid system.  It can be produced very quickly, cheaply and easily and ingested in ways that do not involve smoking – although for some people smoking will be best.  The evidence is conclusive that not only does neat cannabis not cause cancer or COPD but it actually protects the lungs and other major organs including the brain.  It may even reverse dementia.

Sativex is a good, effective product but priced at a ridiculous , exploitative level and produced and regulated under a corrupt system.  Most people can gain more safe, genuine therapeutic benefit from natural herbal cannabis which, with modest skill, they can grow for themselves.  Alternatively, they could buy it from a licensed outlet under a properly regulated system which would far better protect children than the present criminal market.

Whose Pockets Are Being Filled By The British Government’s Corrupt Cannabis Policy?

The Sativex Scandal Deepens. Corruption And Dishonesty At The Home Office. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Supreme Administrative Court Of Munster

The Supreme Administrative Court of Munster has ruled that under strict conditions severely ill Germans will be allowed to grow cannabis at home.

Meanwhile, Britain becomes more isolated and its drugs policy looks more ridiculous every day.

David Cameron and Theresa May maintain a deeply cruel and unjust policy on medicinal cannabis while simultaneously promoting an unlawful and corrupt licensing scheme with GW Pharmaceuticals.

Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug with “no medicinal value” under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.  However, GW Pharma has been granted a licence to grow many tons of cannabis every year for medicine at its premises in Porton Down, Wiltshire and the Kent Science Park in Sittingbourne.

GW’s licence is unlawful because the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 permits the Home Secretary to grant licences only “for special purposes such as research”.  It is clear that the legislation was drafted specifically to exclude the sort of commercial exploitation that GW is engaged in.

GW’s business is also unlawful under the UN Single Convention 1961 which prohibits the trafficking of cannabis across international borders.  GW exports Sativex, its cannabis medicine, all over the world with impunity.

Cameron, May, the Home Office, GW Pharma and others are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive about the fact that Sativex is cannabis and to evade both international and domestic law.  The story is that Sativex is an extract of THC and CBD but this is false.  It is pharmacologically identical to the cannabis plants from which it is made.

A judicial review of this cruel, corrupt and dishonest policy cannot be far away.  Either that or a medicinal user convicted for cultivation or production will take an appeal to the Supreme Court and see these lies exposed.  Cameron and May will probably escape under the cloak of parliamentary privilege but their co-conspirators, the directors of GW, the MHRA and others, should properly face criminal prosecution.

Dr Franjo Grotenhermen

A better solution would be to revise policy on the basis of honesty and science and to follow the example set by Germany.

Dr Franjo Grotenhermen, director of the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines (IACM) issued this statement:

“Under strict conditions severely ill Germans may be allowed to grow cannabis at home, the Supreme Administrative Court of Munster said in a judgment of 7 December 2012. The reasons have now been published. Patients for whom no other therapies are available or effective, but may have medicinal benefit from cannabis, can make an application to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) in Bonn, so that they can treat themselves with their own grown cannabis, accompanied and monitored by their doctor. Previously, all such requests were refused by directive of the Federal Ministry of Health. This practice is illegal, the court stated.

“This ruling is a milestone on the path to a better supply of German citizens with cannabis-based medicines,” said Franjo Grotenhermen, chairman of the German Association for Cannabis as Medicine. “Cannabis products from the pharmacy are unaffordable for most patients. Legalized growing of the plant at home opens up for them for the first time an affordable alternative.” Health insurance companies usually refuse to reimburse the costs of a treatment with cannabinoid medicines. “It is unbearable that many patients have to rely on illegal sources or illegal self-cultivation of their medical need,” Grotenhermen said.

Patients whose health insurances cover the costs of a treatment with cannabinoid-based medications, however do not get a permit for self-cultivation the court made clear. In the particular case of a plaintiff suffering from multiple sclerosis the judges ruled in favour of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had denied him an approval for self-cultivation. The plaintiff had not been able to convince the court that the cannabinoid dronabinol, which is reimbursed by his health insurance, has not the same medical effect as cannabis cultivated by himself.

The arguments of the BfArM for a general denial of approvals for self-cultivation by patients were completely rejected by the court, however. The ruling clarifies: “If an affordable treatment option is missing, a license for personal cultivation of cannabis has to be taken into consideration – at the discretion of the BfArM.” The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices could not require applicants for self-cultivation that strict safeguards against theft, as are required from pharmaceutical companies. The provisions of the Narcotics Act as well as the international drug control treaties would have to be interpreted in a way that the granting of permission to private individuals is possible.

The attorney for the plaintiff, Dr. Oliver Tolmein from Hamburg said that lawmakers are required to act after this decision: “If the Ministry of Health does not want patients to grow cannabis for self-therapy, is has to be made absolutely clear in the law on health insurances that they have to reimburse the cost of cannabinoid-containing medicines or medicinal cannabis for otherwise untreatable patients.”

A medically supervised treatment with cannabis or single cannabinoids in Germany is currently possible in two different ways: first, dronabinol, the synthetic THC derivative nabilone and the cannabis extract Sativex may be prescribed. Secondly, the medical use of herbal cannabis from the pharmacy imported from the Netherlands is possible. This however, requires a special permit from the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices.

The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court has not yet become final. Before the Administrative Court of Cologne more complaints by seriously ill patients, to whom the Federal Ministry of Health denied permission to grow their own cannabis, are pending.

Judgment of 7 December 2012, OVG NRW 13 A 414/11.

For inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact:

Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen, Association for Cannabis as Medicine (ACM), Phone: +49-2952-9708572, Email: info@cannabis-med.org.

Dr. Oliver Tolmein, Phone: +49-176-21813000 or +49-40-600094700.”

Germany Permits Medicinal Users To Grow Cannabis. UK Maintains Cruel And Corrupt Policy. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) has published its final report which makes some important recommendation for reform.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Perhaps the most interesting content is in chapter five “Recommendations”, pages 149 – 151 which is reproduced below.

Review the process for classifying controlled drugs

Given the challenges to the way in which drugs are currently classified, including the rejection of expert advice on some classifications, such as for ecstasy and cannabis, we have concluded that the 40-year-old ABC classification system and the process of providing advice to ministers and parliament has significant weaknesses. For many people it has lost credibility.

There should be a wholesale review both of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the underpinning classification system. Such a review ought to examine the possibility of devolving decision-making responsibility to an expert body which could be accorded a statutory role to make classification decisions, with appropriate democratic safeguards.

This could enable it to revisit the relative classification of individual drugs, based on assessed relative harms, in order to end up with a more coherent framework. The ABC system is not perfect but it has an inherent logic, even if there is often only limited evidence upon which decisions can be based. The Misuse of Drugs Act could be amended to confer delegated decision-making powers either to the ACMD or to a new statutory body.

Reduce sanctions for drug possession

For the reasons outlined in Chapter 3, the law on the possession of small amounts of controlled drugs, for personal use only, could be changed so that it is no longer a criminal offence. Criminal sanctions could be replaced with simple civil penalties, such as a fine, perhaps a referral to a drug awareness session run by a public health body, or if there was a demonstrable need, to a drug treatment programme. The evidence from other countries that have done this is that it would not necessarily lead to any significant increase in use, while providing opportunities to address some of the harms associated with existing drug laws.

Given its relatively low level of harm, its wide usage, and international developments, the obvious drug to focus on as a first step is cannabis, which is already subject to lesser sanctions than previously with the use of cannabis warnings. This is something which has been gathering momentum in other countries. If evaluations indicated that there were no substantial negative consequences, similar incremental measures could be considered, with caution and careful further evaluation, for other drugs.

These changes could potentially result in less demand on police and criminal justice time and resources. Given the experience of other countries, our assessment is that we do not believe this would materially alter prevalence levels, while allowing resources to be spent on more cost-effective measures to reduce the harms associated with drug use. We would expect the net effect to be positive.

Address production and supply

Some people argue for the removal of criminal sanctions not only for possessing drugs but also for their production, trafficking and supply. Among the suggested advantages of this are increased tax revenues, putting a potential end to the criminal control of supply chains and associated violence, and an increased level of safety for users of controlled drugs.

However, other than possibly for cannabis, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence at the moment to support the case for removing criminal penalties for the major production or supply offences of most drugs. One of the lessons from the tobacco and alcohol markets is that commercialisation can lead to some disastrous consequences for the health and wellbeing of the public. As a result there have been moves in the alcohol and tobacco markets to put more trading restraints and regulations in place to reduce the effects of commercialisation.

We appreciate that some will argue that the risks of the commercialisation of controlled drugs could be contained with careful regulation and that our position does nothing to deal with the negative consequences of the current system in places such as South or Central America, Central and South-East Asia or increasingly parts of Africa. It also would not address existing problems with drug contamination and unpredictable dosage levels. But our assessment is that such a change could lead to some hugely negative unintended consequences, and should be treated with caution.

For the most ubiquitous drug, cannabis, it is worth considering whether there are alternative approaches which might be more effective at reducing harm. For example, there is an argument that amending the law relating to the growing of it, at least for personal use, might go some way to undermining the commercialisation of production, with the associated involvement of organised crime and the development of stronger strains of cannabis (‘skunk’), that we have seen in the UK and other countries in recent years.

Fragmenting production could undermine organised crime networks. Perhaps the most expedient course to take here would be to re-examine sentence levels and sentencing practice to ensure that those growing below a certain volume of plants face no – or only minimal – sanctions. The impact of any such move would need to be carefully measured and evaluated so policymakers could make informed decisions about future actions.

A Fresh Approach To Drugs - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Sativex is super strong, concentrated cannabis.  Nothing more, nothing less.

GW Pharmaceuticals would have you believe that it’s a “pharmaceutical” product because according to its research that’s what patients prefer.  As the GW spokesman puts it, “It’s a pharmaceutical solution, formulated with the ability to deliver a precise dose and with stringent standards of quality, safety and efficacy”.

In fact, what GW does is grow high quality cannabis under pretty much the same conditions as most illegal growers.   It uses clonal propagation to ensure consistent levels of cannabinoids.  Lighting and hydroponic nutrition is computer controlled with automatic ventilation. It really is no different from the most sophisticated and efficient illegal cannabis farms.  It’s a recognised and proven technology now also used by Bedrocan in Holland, the Dutch government’s exclusive medicinal cannabis grower and Gropech in California which is building a new 60,000 sq ft facility in Oakland for an annual harvest worth $50 million.

Bedrocan Grow

The difference between these crops from legal and illegal growers is insignificant.  It’s similar to buying your tomatoes from the supermarket or the farm shop.

GW Grow

GW takes its high quality cannabis, chops it up and makes a tincture by heating it under pressure with CO2 and then adding ethanol to precipitate an oil. Then, with the addition of a little peppermint oil to mask the taste and some preservative, the filtered liquid is packaged into tiny little aerosol bottles.  Each spray delivers 2.7mg of THC and 2.5mg of CBD.  What GW doesn’t tell you that it also contains all the other 100+  cannabinoids found in the plant, each of which has its own mechanism of action and effect.  It also contains flavonoids, terpines and other compounds.  Everything that is found in the plant.

Illegal Grow

I applaud GW Pharmaceuticals for bringing the enormous benefits of cannabinoid therapy into the 21st century. It’s nothing new though. The medicinal value of the plant has been known and widely used for thousands of years.  Only in the last century has it been demonised by lies and propaganda.  It would be a mistake though to think that Sativex is anything different from the plant itself.  It’s just been wrapped up in a marketing and physical package which has enabled stupid and cowardly politicians to accept it.

In fact, Sativex remains just as illegal in Britain as herbal cannabis.  Even though it has received MHRA approval for use in the treatment of MS spasticity and may be prescribed by a doctor, it remains a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971.  The Home Office has indicated that it intends to amend the law but has not yet done so.  This means that any pharmacist who dispenses Sativex at present would be guilty of exactly the same criminal offence as any street dealer in weed or hash.

The Home Office will, of course, turn a blind eye to this but not to medicinal herbal cannabis even though, in every sense, it is identical to Sativex (except that Sativex also contains alcohol and peppermint oil).  The stark idiocy of British law is revealed.

Never before has there been a better example of the how the law is an ass and so are the spineless politicians who support it.

Update

In 2011 the Home Office issued what it calls an “Open General Licence” for Sativex allowing it to be prescribed and dispensed.  A doctor may prescribe Sativex for its approved purposed “spasticity in MS” or, “off label”, for any condition he or she believes it to be beneficial for.  However, “off label” prescriptions are the doctor’s personal responsibility so it is easy to understand why doctors may be hesitant to do so.

Most PCTs and health authorities are refusing to fund Sativex because of the extraordinarily high price that GW and its UK distributors Bayer want to charge the NHS.  At about £175 per bottle, Sativex costs around 10 times what organised crime sells cannabis for on the streets.  Products that are pharmacologically identical to Sativex are available from medical marijuana dispensaries in the US for around $20 per bottle (usually containing much more than the GW product).  Alta California offers three varieties of a Sativex-type tincture with different cannabinoid ratios for different purposes.

In June 2011, CLEAR and Action4MS announced a joint venture Access Sativex which will seek to organise and help people apply for Sativex.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recommended that Sativex be  placed in schedule four of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).  The chair, Professor Les Iversen, wrote to the Home Office on 14th January 2011 with this advice but nothing has been done.  It is easy to understand why.  As Professor Iversen wrote:  “The ACMD is also aware that it will not be appropriate to refer to “Sativex”, which is a proprietary name, in any amendment to the misuse of drugs regulations, and that a suitable description of the relevant component(s) of “Sativex” will have to be scheduled”.

There is no honest or accurate way to describe Sativex except to say that it is cannabis.  The Home Office is on the record as saying that “the future scheduling of this medicinal product will not affect the classification of cannabis” which is unambiguous evidence of an intention to deceive.

Perhaps the most important truth to emerge from this story of deceit and disinformation is the statement made by Professor H.P. Hartung, Chair of Neurology at Heinrich-Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany on 24th October 2011.  He was commenting on data from three Phase III trials involving over 1,500 MS patients as well as first everyday clinical practice data were presented by a panel of international experts at the European Congress of Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) in Amsterdam.

“Sativex^® has proven to reduce the severity of symptoms and improve patients’ quality of life and functional status, in patients with spasticity in multiple sclerosis, meaning that they can undertake everyday tasks more easily. Also, importantly, clinical experience to date has demonstrated that 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.”

The Truth About Sativex - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

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

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

Des Humphrey

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

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

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

The Legal Remedies campaign

Legal Remedies – A Call To Action

Legal Remedies – Opening Salvo

Legal Remedies part 4

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

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

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

Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a complaint against Acting Detective Inspector Bob Chapman of South Yorkshire Police concerning statements made by him and published in The Star newspaper on 29th October 2011. The article in question is available online here: http://www.thestar.co.uk/community/drugs_crackdown_15_arrests_and_50k_of_drugs_seized_in_sheffield_1_3919511

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. Thousands of the members of CLEAR need cannabis as medicine to treat conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and spinal injury. For the purposes of correspondence, please contact me via email.

As published in The Star, Acting DCI Chapman said: “The strength of some of the skunk cannabis on sale is, in my opinion, of a strength comparable to Class A rather than Class B drugs.”

This is a false, nonsensical and misleading statement which attempts to deceive the public:

a) that the A/DCI has some specific scientific knowledge about the “strength” of “skunk cannabis” on sale in Sheffield
b) that there is some meaning or scientific validity in comparing the “strength” of “Class A” and “Class B” drugs
c) that the A/DCI is an expert in the subject and the public can rely on the accuracy and veracity of what he says
d) into fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group

In making this statement the A/DCI has acted dishonestly, without integrity, fairness and impartiality. He has abused his authority by making statements which are false, nonsensical and misleading but which, as a senior police officer, he knows that the public will believe without question. He has also acted in a way that discredits the police service and will undermine public confidence.

a) In order to make any such comparison, the A/DCI would need to have results of cannabinoid content analysis of “skunk cannabis” currently on sale in Sheffield. There would also need to be a determination of what “strength” means. Does it relate to THC content alone, to THC ameliorated by CBD or to any of the other hundreds of cannabinoids, flavonoids and terpines present in cannabis?
b) The “class” of a drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA) is determined by the degree to which it is likely to cause social harm. Health or individual harms are not within the remit of the MoDA except where they may amount to social harm. In any event, the pharmacology of drugs in “Class A” and “Class B” is not the same and so any comparison is impossible and to suggest it is misleading.
c) The public are likely to be deceived and misled by the A/DCI’s words
d) The public are likely to be alarmed by the A/DCI’s words which are clearly intended to cause fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group

I accept that the A/DCI has a duty to uphold the law as it presently stands, It is however entirely improper for him to engage in politics, scaremongering, the promotion of false science and propaganda.

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

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

IPCC Complaint – Acting Detective Chief Inspector Bob Chapman of South Yorkshire Police - 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

Tax & Regulate Cannabis

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the government should introduce a system of regulation for the production and supply of cannabis. This would include personal cultivation licences for up to six plants, commercial cultivation licences, sales through licensed outlets to adults only. The system would be funded by licence fees and a £1 per gram tax on retail sales. This would also provide funding for additional education and healthcare services.

I have to wait up to a week to see whether it is approved.  Then, if we can get 100,000 signatures within 6 months, a committee of MPs will consider whether or not to give it parliamentary time.  See the full story here.

Of course, cannabis law reform was the most popular proposal on the Your Freedom website – which was promptly shelved as a result.  It’s also been the most popular idea on President Obama’s websites and was the second most popular proposal on the AlJazeera YouTube interview with David Cameron earlier this year, when our prime minister disgraced himself with a series of crass and ridiculous untruths which he still hasn’t corrected.

Petitions have become devalued in the last couple of years.  Although Avaaz and 38 Degrees have done some good work, there are now so many of them that they have become virtually meaningless.  This though is the official government petition site and there can only be one petition on each subject.  We have to give it a go and we have to aim to get not just one hundred thousand signatures but many more.

If my petition on the subject doesn’t get through, I’m sure another will.  Then we must all work together as never before to get our voters out.  We must make the millions of us who use cannabis stand up to be counted.  We must take this chance!

Can We Get 100,000 Signatures? - 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

The following is CLEAR’s submission in response.

Sentencing Council
Drug Offences Guidelines – Response to Public Consultation
Cannabis Law Reform 15-06-11

This response is submitted on behalf of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a registered UK political party and its members.

CLEAR’s aims and objectives are:

1. To end the prohibition of cannabis.
2. To promote as a matter of urgency and compassion the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors.
3. To introduce a system of regulation for the production and supply of cannabis based on facts and evidence.
4. To encourage the production and use of industrial hemp.
5. To educate and inform about the uses and benefits of cannabis.

We recognise that the Sentencing Council is concerned only with the law as it stands.  We do not seek to address you with any suggestions about changes in the law.  Our concern is to provide you with information to assist in developing sentencing guidelines for cannabis offences.  In particular, we seek to provide information about the medicinal use of cannabis and how this should be a very substantial mitigating factor.  In some instances we suggest that it should mean any sentence should be no more than an absolute discharge.

Q1. We do agree with the Council’s approach of separating classes B and C.

Q2. We recommend that medicinal use of cannabis should be a mitigating factor in all offences.

Please see the appendix “Medicinal Use of Cannabis” for further information.

For all offences, evidence that cannabis is for medicinal use should substantially reduce sentences.  In the most clear cut cases where, for instance, the offender has a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use from a medical professional, the sentence should be an absolute discharge.

Sativex, an MHRA approved medicine, is a tincture of cannabis and pharmacologically identical to cannabis.  Many people who have requested the medicine have been refused it because their PCT or health authority will not fund it.  In these cases, for all offences, they should be dealt with as leniently as possible.

Importation Offences

16 US states now permit the use of medical marijuana based on a doctor’s recommendation.  Most countries in Europe with the main exceptions of the UK and France now permit doctors to prescribe cannabis.  Israel also permits the prescription of cannabis by doctors.

Residents of any EU country where doctors are permitted to prescribe cannabis are entitled to import cannabis into the UK and to possess and use it without restriction under the protection of a Schengen Certificate.

In particular, the Dutch government contracts exclusively with Bedrocan BV for the cultivation of medicinal cannabis which is widely exported all over Europe.

Any offender with a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use, or who can show that the importation is for medicinal use by someone with a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use, should receive an absolute discharge.

Supply Offences

Any offender who can show that the supply of cannabis is for medicinal use by someone with a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use, should receive an absolute discharge.

Production/Cultivation Offences

In our experience, all cases involving the cultivation of cannabis are now charged as production offences under the trafficking section of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).  There appears to be no rationale for this, except that it provides for more severe sentences.  The decision as to which charge to bring is for the prosecution but clear guidelines should be given for sentencing based on the number of plants.

Also, the state of maturity of the plants should be considered.  Usually, cannabis will be cultivated on a continuous basis so that there will be plants at various states of growth from seedling to mature.  Clearly it would be unjust to give the same sentence for 10 or 20 seedlings a few inches high as for 10 or 20 mature plants, each of which may provide between 10g to 75g of useable cannabis.

Our proposal is that 12 mature plants per person should be regarded as the maximum for personal use.  Seedlings which show no sign of flowering are not useable cannabis and should be disregarded.  At 12 plants or fewer, any offender with a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use, or who can show that the cannabis is for medicinal use by someone with a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use, should receive an absolute discharge.

Q3. We do agree with the different approaches taken for determining the seriousness of the offence for each of the drug guidelines.

Q4. We agree that someone possessing any quantity of drug in a prison should receive a more severe sentence provided that anyone entering prison with a drug addiction or dependency has been provided with appropriate healthcare interventions.

Q5. We agree with the quantities specified for importation and possession given the medicinal mitigation that we set out above.  We recommend the adoption of similar categories for production/cultivation offences.  Specifically for cannabis we recommend that offenders with 12 mature plants or fewer should be in the lowest category.

Q6. For cannabis production/cultivation offences we believe that only mature plants should be considered an offence. Seedlings which show no sign of flowering are not useable cannabis and should be disregarded. Prosecutors would be free to bring attempt charges if large quantities of seedlings are discovered.

Q7. The evidence for the medicinal benefits of cannabis is now overwhelming. It is not mixed at all.  Please see the appendix “Medicinal Use of Cannabis” for further information. Sativex, which is a cannabis tincture is now an MHRA approved medicine. For all offences, evidence that cannabis is for medicinal use should substantially reduce sentences.  In the most clear cut cases where, for instance, the offender has a doctor’s prescription, recommendation or evidence of medicinal use from a medical professional, the sentence should be an absolute discharge.

Particular consideration should be given to offenders suffering from conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease and fibromyalgia where the pharmaceutical products usually prescribed are highly toxic to the liver.  In many cases, a few years of this therapy will inevitably result in the destruction of the liver and cananbis represents a non-toxic alternative.  In these cases offenders should be dealt with as leniently as possible.

Q8. We agree with the types of offenders described except in the case of production/cultivation of cannabis where we recommend a slightly different model as set out below.

CLEAR identifies four groups of people involved in the cultivation/production of cannabis.

A. People growing cannabis for their own medicinal use.
B. People growing cannabis for their own non-medicinal use
C. People growing cannabis for commercial purposes
D. People growing cannabis under pressure, intimidation, coercion or duress or who have been trafficked for the purpose.

There is undoubtedly some crossover between these groups and people growing for their own use may be involved in some limited social supply.

There should be no question of a custodial sentence for anyone in groups A, B and D.

Where cultivation/production of cannabis involves the theft of electricity, destruction of property or other offences these should be dealt with separately.

We make no comment on the sentencing ranges proposed for non-cannabis offences.

The sentencing ranges proposed for cannabis are brutal and entirely disproportionate for a substance which is scientifically proven to be hundreds of times less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, over-the-counter and prescription only medicines and all other drugs controlled under the MoDA.

In fact, the MoDA describes its purpose when it says that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) should “keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to them capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem”

As the harmful effects of cannabis are several orders of magnitude less than alcohol, tobacco, most medicines and all other drugs controlled under the MoDA, it is difficult to see how they could constitute a social problem.  Indeed, in the case of medicinal use the effects of cannabis are clearly very beneficial.  Sentences should therefore properly reflect these facts in accordance with the MoDA.

Where cannabis is for personal and/or medicinal use with some limited social supply there should be no question of a custodial sentence for anyone.  It is clearly a victimless “crime” and is only defined as a crime by statute.

Q9. Cannabis “crimes” are generally victimless except when involving children.  With more proportionate sentencing for adults we would support more severe sentences for offences involving children.

It may be thought that other victims include electricity companies, landlords or growers under category D above.  These though are not victims of cannabis “crimes” but of other common law crimes.

Q10. The prohibition of cannabis is discriminatory in itself, in that it criminalises people who choose a drug or medicine other than those arbitrarily chosen by others which are almost always more harmful to the individual and society than cannabis.

Such discrimination is particularly unjust in the case of medicinal users or those who use cannabis as part of their religion, eg, Cannabists, Cantheists or Rastafarians

Q11. While the law that prohibits cannabis remains out of step with both public opinion and science, sentencing should at least try to retain public confidence.  Certainly in the case of the medicinal use of cannabis, public confidence is destroyed by harsh sentences.  Imprisoning anyone for importing, producing/cultivating or possessing cannabis that they needs as medicine is not an injustice, it is an obscenity.

APPENDIX

MEDICINAL USE OF CANNABIS

There is peer-reviewed, published scientific research proving the medicinal benefit of cannabis for each of the following conditions. (Further information can be provided on request)

ADD/ADHD, Addiction, Aging, AIDS, Alcoholism, Allergy, ALS, Alzheimer’s, Anorexia, Anxiety, Appetite, Arthritis, Asthma, Artherosclerosis, Asperger’s, Autism, Back pain,
Bacterial infection, Bipolar disorder, Bladder problems, Brain injury, Bulimia, Cancer,
Chemotherapy, CMT, COPD, Crohn’s, Cruetzfeldt-Jacob disease, Cough, Cystic Fibrosis, Cystitis, Depression, Dermatitis, Diabetes, Dystonia, Eczema, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, Encephalitis, Encephalomyelitis, Epilepsy, Fertlity, Fibromyalgia, Fungal infection, Glaucoma, HIV, Hepatitis, High blood pressure, Huntingdon’s disease, Hypertension, IBS, Inflammation, Migraine, Morning sickness, Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Muscular Dystrophy, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), Nausea, Neurodegenerative disease, Neuropathic pain, Nutrition, OCD, Obesity, Osteoporosis, PTSD, Pain, Parkinson’s, Pruritis, Psoriasis, Psychosis, Restless leg syndrome, Schizophrenia, Sickle cell disease, Sleep disorder, Spasticity, Spinal injury, Stroke, Tinnitus, Tourette’s syndrome, Ulcerative colitis, Wilson’s disease.

Anyone who suffers from any of these conditions may reasonably wish to use cannabis to treat themselves.  Although the law may unjustly criminalise them, sentencing should reflect that their “crime” is victimless and that they need cannabis as medicine.

Clinical Studies and Case Reports

The International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines (IACM) publishes an up to date reference list of clinical studies and case reports here: http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids, A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 — 2011 is here: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

UK Cannabis Internet Activist (UKCIA) publishes a reference list of medical testimonies here: http://www.ukcia.org/medical/medicaltestimonies.php

CLEAR has published a leaflet on medicinal cannabis here: http://clear-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CLEARmedcanleaflet.pdf

Documentary Films

Bringing Cannabis Back Into The Medicine Cabinet 2010

Professor Les Iversen delivers the Inaugural President’s Public Lecture during the British Pharmacological Society Winter Meeting, London 2010.  He shows a film of his visit to GW Pharmaceuticals to see exactly how Sativex is made.  This is a brilliant lecture from the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the government’s chief drugs advisor.

Clearing The Smoke: The Science Of Cannabis 2011

MontanaPBS’s new documentary, Clearing the Smoke, reveals how cannabis acts on the brain and in the body to treat nausea, pain, epilepsy and potentially even cancer.  Extensive interviews with patients, doctors, researchers and skeptics detail the promises and the limitations of medicinal cannabis.

Medicinal Cannabis And Its Impact On Human Health 2011

In this myth shattering, information packed documentary, learn from physicians and leading researchers about medicinal cannabis and its demonstrated effects on human health.  This game-changing movie presents the most comprehensive synopsis to date of the real science surrounding the world’s most controversial plant.

Sentencing Council, Drug Offences Guidelines. Response To Public Consultation. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

By Darryl Bickler, Drug Equality Alliance

Would it surprise you to learn that in law there are no ‘illegal drugs’, no ‘illicit drugs’ and no crime of using such drugs either? We are beings, not objects – the law controls us, drug users. There is no mandate in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA) for policing our intimate chemistry, unless our actions lead to a social problem. The law does not say anywhere that we shouldn’t use cannabis, yet this is how users experience it, as an assault on freedom to medicate and modify consciousness.

Is the language deployed to engage with the debate important? It’s more than important; it’s everything. Unless users comprehend the fact that policy is only words and that only the right words can penetrate this edifice, then there is no possibility of transforming our lives. We must respect drug users through re-framing the various prohibitionist de-personalising deceptions and legal misconstructions into the correct language. Reformists have failed to understand the prohibitionist language and belief system and actually deploy it themselves; the result is that their efforts are akin to trying to defeat racism via the slogan ‘equality for niggers’.

One thing that matters to me about drug policy is that it is understood in terms of choices for persons of a suitable age. I’m focused on people and their conduct with respect to their drug interests – talking about regulating drugs is a fetishised form of the debate about freedom. Rather than addressing a problem, it starts with a chemical supposedly being acceptable or unacceptable, irrespective of the human element determining whether there is a misuse that gives rise to a social problem or not.

Choice means being able to think freely; all of our fundamental freedoms are dependant upon an unequivocal respect for freedom of thought. The European Convention on Human Rights grants an inviolable right under Article 9(1); I see this as a right to access that modality of thought cannabis facilitates, and being able to do so without worrying about any unwarranted interference or condemnation. Prohibitionists sow the seeds of destruction by front-loading negative outcomes into the psyche of vulnerable persons. We dream of the freedom to belong, being equal with others who sensibly enjoy alcohol or other activities that cause no harm to others. We can only do this when we purge the debate from all stigmatising propagandist anti-drug user rhetoric and jargon. Persons interested in the cause must come to terms with the lexicon of so-called drug war propaganda.

The misconstruction of the law allows government to conclude that the persons abusing alcohol or tobacco to be identified as users of ‘legal drugs’. This means that government have by-passed the MoDA mandate to address drug misuse that causes social harm. The justification for this ‘separate but equal’ administration of drug users is cited to be “historic and cultural precedent.” ‘Illegal drugs’ is the legal fiction that obscures the regulatory apparatus of the MoDA and facilitates a prohibitionist policy outcome that Parliament did not legislate for, that is one that entirely ignores the vast majority of drug abusers and then fails to differentiate between peaceful and problematic activities of those it scapegoats and persecutes.

I have commented elsewhere about the inequalities of treatment experienced by users. The law is a product of the global legal diktat in the form of international treaties and conventions. These presume to exclude classes of drug users, such as drinkers and the smokers of tobacco, and of course various psychoactive pharmaceuticals, from the operation of national laws even though the misuse of these drugs leads to nearly all of the harm caused by substance misuse. Incredibly the ACMD hasn’t a single file on alcohol or tobacco related harms, even though parliamentarians in the UK drafted a law that clearly was insightful enough to mandate the best available expert body to be at the heart of the administration.

Cannabis is about increasing wellness, not illness; for many it is about feeling recharged, and awakened out of mental sluggishness and relieved of physical pains. In fact, it’s about anything you want it to be about, about being alive and experiencing the blossoming of self. First and foremost it’s about you, not the plant.

The Words That Control Our Thoughts - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

CLEAR profoundly disagrees with the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) and Demos.  The MoDA is progressive and extremely flexible legislation that provides an ideal framework for the regulation and control of all drugs, including the phenomenon of “legal highs”. Based on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the principle is that drugs should be classified according to their relative harms and regulated accordingly.

The problem is the maladministration of the MoDA by successive governments since it was enacted in 1971.   Instead of being used as a rational method of control for the reduction of harm, it is used as an instrument of prohibition, which provides no control at all and tends to maximise harms rather than reducing them.

Peter Reynolds, leader of CLEAR, said:

“The problem isn’t legislation. It’s the misuse of the Misuse of Drugs Act.  If the Home Office would take responsibility, as it is supposed to,  for controlling drugs and minimising harms  based on the advice of the Advisory Council, then we would have far less drug related harm. Instead it clings to a discredited, unscientific and myopic policy of prohibition which actually causes far more harm than it prevents.   For the last 40 years, British Home Secretaries have been directly responsible for maximising harm, misery, death and degradation because of their failure to admister the law properly.”

Misuse Of Drugs Act “Not Fit For Purpose” According To UKDPC And Demos - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party