A study published in American Journal of Epidemiology (Abstract here) called “Obesity and Cannabis Use: Results From two Representative National Surveys” looked at the weight of cannabis users. Simply, if the claim about the munchies leading to obesity were true, then the researchers should have found that cannabis users were fatter on average than none users. The “wrong result” of course, showed the exact opposite

The authors conclude that the prevalence of obesity is lower in cannabis users than in nonusers.

Whoops, there goes another prohibition claim and it’s no small difference either. So what’s going on? It is true that some cannabis consumers do hit the munchies and some may intake a good 600 cals more than average. But as Time (Health and Family) reported

… showing that rates of obesity are lower by roughly a third in people who smoke pot at least three times a week, compared with those who don’t use marijuana at all.

As Time reports

Researchers analyzed data from two large national surveys of the American population, which together included some 52,000 participants. In the first survey, they found that 22% of those who did not smoke marijuana were obese, compared with just 14% of the regular marijuana smokers. The second survey found that 25% of nonsmokers were obese, compared with 17% of regular cannabis users.

They also found that this result held true after adjusting for other variables which might have an effect on body weight such as general health age, tobacco use and gender. The Time article tries to pour cold water on the idea that cannabis might actually be a slimming aid, pointing out that consumers are unlikely to be able to resist eating, but that misses the point as the article has already established they take in more calories than average, yet don’t seem to be gaining the weight.

So could it be that cannabis actually allows people to eat chocolate with a clear conscience? It does seem that way. As Time says

Whatever the case, marijuana research never lacks for surprises!

Even more important than the effect of cannabis on waist sizes was reported in the Independent today

Cannabis linked to prevention of diabetes

Regular users of the drug found to have lower levels of insulin after fasting, research shows

This is dynamite news and yet again runs counter to the UK government’s insistence that herbal cannabis has no medicinal value. The Independent reports

Smoking cannabis may prevent the development of diabetes, one of the most rapidly rising chronic disorders in the world.

This is amazing news if it’s proven to be correct

Researchers have found that regular users of the drug had lower levels of the hormone insulin after fasting – a signal that they are protected against diabetes. They also had reduced insulin resistance….

The study involved almost 5,000 patients who answered a questionnaire about their drug use and were part of the National Health and Nutrition Survey between 2005 and 2010. The results showed almost 2,000 had used cannabis at some point in their lives and more than one in 10 (579) were current users. Only those who had used cannabis within the past month showed evidence of protection against diabetes, suggesting that the effects wear off in time. Current users of the drug had 16 per cent lower fasting insulin than those who had never used the drug.

Diabetes.co.uk reports

“Previous epidemiologic studies have found lower prevalence rates of obesity and diabetes mellitus in marijuana users compared to people who have never used marijuana, suggesting a relationship between cannabinoids and peripheral metabolic processes, but ours is the first to investigate the relationship between marijuana use and fasting insulin, glucose, and insulin resistance,” said lead investigator Mittleman.

The reports adds

Prof Joseph S. Alpert, of the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and editor in chief of the American Journal of Medicine, which published the findings, said: “These are remarkable observations that are supported by basic science experiments that came to similar conclusions.”We desperately need a great deal more basic and clinical research into the short and long term effects of marijuana in a variety of clinical settings such as cancer, diabetes and frailty of the elderly.”

That, and very much more. What we also need is a government willing to take the blinkers from its eyes and to accept the fact that there is clearly a great deal of medicinal benefit to be had from herbal cannabis. The insistence that cannabis is a drug with no medicinal value is not only wrong, it’s cruel. Many, many ill people’s lives will be improved when this corrupt prohibition law finally ends.

Cannabis, The Munchies, Obesity And Diabetes - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The fact that there are two major active components has meant the  nature of cannabis has been seriously misrepresented and therefore misunderstood for years, originally through ignorance but more recently deliberately.

For just about all other drugs of intoxication (or enlightenment depending on how you look at these things) there’s really only one consideration: How much of the drug you take, i.e. the dose. Strong drugs simply give you more of the drug per gram, pint or whatever unit the drug is measured in. In other words, drugs generally consist of an active compound contained within a larger volume of something else which can be considered neutral.

Hence we have a very simple variable to talk about which we call “strength”. Even if they don’t really understand how it works, most people are familiar enough with this concept as it applies to booze and understand that a beer with a 3% ABV is a lot weaker than a beer with 10% ABV, even if they don’t know what a “% ABV” actually means*. Most people know something else about “strength” as well, which is that you don’t need as much of the strong stuff as you do the weak, but have enough of the weak stuff and you end up in the same place as you do with the strong stuff more or less.

Hence we have a simple variable called “strength” which is widely understood and is nice and easy. This concept extends way beyond booze to include all the naughty drugs – cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, you name it the same logic applies, “stronger” means “higher dose” per gulp/snort/fix.

But when we come to consider cannabis we find things are measured differently and we find a new word is used: “potency”. Whenever governments or their agencies start using a subtly different term for something you think you understand it’s always a good idea to ask why?

The Home Office study into cannabis potency of 2008 (PDF read it here) had a go at defining this “potency” concept. The definition the study gave was:

The potency of cannabis is defined as the concentration (%) of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Sadly it didn’t specify what the concentration is a percentage of, giving the misleading impression perhaps that a sample of herbal cannabis consists of upwards of 40% THC. Now, this is clearly not the case as a sample of herbal plant material plainly doesn’t consist of nearly half THC, either by volume or by weight. No matter how strong the cannabis is, most of it is clearly plant material. Indeed, it’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t even consist of 5% THC by weight or volume because that would still be a huge amount of what is a very powerful psychoactive drug. So it’s clear that “potency” isn’t anything like the same simple concept as strength.

Actually the % THC figure is the proportion of THC in the oils produced by the plant. The plant oozes oils – the pure resin – from glands known as “trichomes”. It’s these tiny beads of oil which contain the active chemicals that make cannabis what it is and the “potency” figure often quoted is the proportion of this oil which is THC.

Two important points flow from this:

1: Potency is not strength. Clearly you could have a sample of cannabis with very few globs of resin on, which would make it quite weak, although the resin it did contain could be high in THC, making it a high potency. Likewise a concentrated form of low potency cannabis could deliver a large dose of THC, making it quite strong. One “concentrated form of cannabis” is known as hashish, being the resin of the plant with far less vegetable matter included.

2: The THC is expressed as a percentage (by weight actually) of the oils, there are clearly other substances in the oil, quite a few of which are psycho active but it turns out that one in particular, known as CBD or cannabidiol, is very important when it comes to understanding just what cannabis does to the user.

Spurred on by the Reefer Madness V2 scare of the last decade there were two “Cannabis and Mental Health” conferences held in London in 2004 and 2007 and one of the more interesting presentations (for me) came from Dr Zerrin Atakan who was involved in a study which reported in 2009 called “Distinct Effects of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol” on Neural Activation During Emotional Processing”. The study undertaken by Zerrin Atakan and Professor Philip McGuire consisted of giving subjects a dose of THC or CBD or a placebo and examining the effects on the subject by both a series of standard tests and also by magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (here).  Professor Philip McGuire stated

“These studies show that THC and CBD have distinct effects on brain function in humans, and these may underlie their correspondingly different effects on cognition and psychiatric symptoms. Determining how the constituents of cannabis act on the brain is fundamental to understanding the role of cannabis use in the aetiology of psychiatric disorders.”

In English this means understanding the combined roles of THC and CBD is important for understanding how cannabis works and what its effect on the brain will be; it isn’t just about THC,

The really interesting thing about this is that CBD turns out to be playing a significant role, yet until recently it had never been routinely measured. It’s almost the polar opposite of THC in its effects in some respects; if THC is linked to psychotic type episodes, CBD has anti psychotic properties. If THC is thought to cause panic attacks, CBD calms those impulses. Put in terms the Daily Mail could understand, if THC is “bad”, CBD is “good”.

The practical upshot of all this is that talking of cannabis simply in terms of “potency” masquerading as “strength” is meaningless, we need to be far more sophisticated in the way to describe it. The measure of “potency” as used by the government is simply not up to the job, which is no surprise really as it came from the law enforcement requirements of prohibition, not from concerns of public health or any real understanding of the plant. To mean anything, “potency” has to state the concentration of both THC and CBD.

Of course, all this isn’t news to experienced cannabis users. It’s long been known that the old skool hash from Morocco for example was laid  back and dreamy whilst some of the modern strains are somewhat “edgy” or “trippy”. But we can thank Zerrin and her team for providing the explanation in terms of the combined effects of THC and CBD on the brain and providing the science, this difference is real.

Now the  the Home Office “potency” study of 2008 was close to being “cod science” because of the way it collected its data and on its lax definitions of potency but it did show one interesting result which is relevant to this discussion; the THC/CBD balance of “traditional” hashish we used to get in the UK is very different to that of some herbal cannabis on sale today. The traditional hash contained something like 5% THC and 3.5% CBD on average. Now what this means is the oils in the sample contained a total of 8.5% active ingredients and 91.5% uninteresting goo – ie  mostly none psycho-active resin plus a range of minor active chemicals. The valuable bit of information here isn’t the THC concentration but the ratio of the two chemicals of 7 parts CBD to 10 parts THC. That isn’t too far off 50-50. It’s interesting to note that the composition of Sativex – the cannabis medicine – is 51/49 THC/CBD, a composition arrived at because it had the best effectivity with the minimum unpleasant side effects.

The thing to note is that before the present prohibition policy choked off imported hash from north Africa, most of the cannabis supplied to the UK was of this type with a more or less equal ratio of THC:CBD. The policy so enthusiastically followed by our government has seen this replaced by strains which are much lower in CBD. So there we have an “unintended consequence” of prohibition, the suppression of a well balanced product and its substitution with something very different, but different in a way no-one thought important to monitor, much less control.

This is at the root of the claims that cannabis potency has increased in recent years, which is a claim often made by prohibition campaigners and used to justify continued prohibition. Far from being an argument in favour of continued prohibition however, this change was caused by it. If as the government claims it is true that high potency (ie low CBD) cannabis is dangerous for some people it is a danger caused directly by the prohibition policy.

With most – if not all – other drugs the control of the strength is important. With cannabis the composition in terms of THC and CBD is equally if not more important. This variable is determined primarily by the strain grown, in other words by the seeds sold, but also to an extent by the maturity of the plant when harvested. If the government is really concerned about the potential for harm caused by the type of cannabis on sale in the country as they claim to be, controlling and properly regulating the seed suppliers and the growing industry is the way to go. Here we have some solid science to support that suggestion.

Thus far, the law has only served to make things potentially more dangerous whilst relying on a useless measurement which is widely misunderstood, but that’s how prohibition works.

——————-

* % ABV means “the percentage of Alcohol by volume”, so 100 ml of 10%ABV plonk will contain 10ml of pure alcohol.

Potency: A Widely Misunderstood Concept. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

How can we create change?  What will make a difference?

Why can’t we make the sort of progress that has been seen in Washington and Colorado?

Cannabis prohibition is causing massive harm and waste in Britain.

Most other European countries have less strict policies.  We all know about Holland.  In Belgium you’re allowed to grow one plant.  In Italy you can ‘grow a few plants on your balcony‘.  In the Czech Republic you’re permitted to possess – without fear of prosecution – up to five grams of cannabis (and,  if you want to, 40 magic mushrooms, five peyote plants, five tabs of LSD, four hits of ecstasy, two grams of speed, one and a half grams of heroin, five coca plants and a gram of coke!)

What holds us back in Britain?

In fact, the campaign has made considerable progress in the last two or three years.  The relaunch of  the LCA as CLEAR started it all and support has become more widespread and organised ever since.  Many cannabis social clubs have been formed and there are new organisations, all working in a professional way to a far higher standard than before. This is all excellent news and although we don’t all see eye to eye, the fact is there is far more good work going on now than there was pre-2011.

Britain is a different and particularly difficult place to achieve  reform.  Partly it’s our media, particularly our newspapers, and we do tend to follow the  US more than the rest of Europe.  That’s why, whatever we do here, it will be as nothing compared to the effect of more states legalising in the US.  That’s what will ultimately change things here.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.  What it does mean is we have to be smart and very focused on what has a real effect  .

Colorado and Washington have achieved change because of local democracy and that’s why America will lead the way. Britain, the home of modern democracy, has sadly succumbed to the party whip system and to that ever present fear of and subjugation by the Fleet Street mafia.  The Daily Mail has run cannabis policy in Britain for the last 20 years.

The natural inclination is to protest but this is not what has worked.  Colorado and Washington have not succeeded because of large gatherings or marches. What has achieved change has been the patient, detailed drafting of bills, an organised campaign and lobbying of voters.  The people on the marches were always going to vote our way.  Such work is merely preaching to the choir.

Success has been achieved through concentrated, diligent and determined work, not through civil disobedience.

Today’s Global Marijuana March, Million Marijuana March or whatever else we call it is a token of our protest.  It’s cannabis! The whole world is waking up, once again, to the fact that prohibition is a great, immoral evil.

Save the children.  End prohibition.

What we need to do now is the work, the detail, the negotiation, the settlement. We are almost there.

How Can the Cannabis Campaign Succeed In Britain? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

But…

Ten Years After – Ganja Day 2003, Brixton

Now I should make it clear that I didn’t go to 420 day, partly because it was so far away from where I live but mostly because, as someone who no longer uses cannabis, events like this aren’t really my thing any more. But going by the many photos, videos and reports I’ve seen, two things did bother me  and in my opinion they are important issues.

One was the number of rather young people there, quite a few were under 18 by the look of things. As the event was oganised on Facebook that’s not really a surprise, but it really doesn’t do the campaign any great favours and gives the prohibition lobby a highly emotive weapon to use against us. Any law reform we might see for cannabis will surely involve age limits and change will come about at least in part because of the perceived need to protect kids from the cannabis trade. Organising an event like this which can be presented (unfairly maybe) as promoting cannabis use amongst kids is playing right into the Daily Mail’s hands. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention of the organisers, of course it wasn’t, but it did look that way.

The other thing I found really unfortunate was that – again from looking at the pictures and videos – pretty much everyone was smoking tobacco filled joints. Now for heaven’s sake we really shouldn’t still be having this debate. Any organisation putting on a 420 type event really should be encouraging people not to mix their cannabis with such a nasty carcinogenic, addictive drug as tobacco, a drug which is regarded as a pariah by most adults now. Let me make it plain what I’m saying here; I don’t mean that anyone skinning up a tobacco filled fattie should be frog marched off the demo, but that a part of the pre-demo publicity should have promoted the idea of tobacco free smoking, something along the lines of the TOKEpure campaign, perhaps with banners and leaflets on the day. I think some CLEAR TOKEpure leaflets were given out, but the London Cannabis Club didn’t do anything I know of.

What 420 day did, unfortunately, was to show lots of young people smoking tobacco. I’m afraid that is wrong on so many levels and again, it does the campaign no favours. Organisers of this sort of event do need to be aware of these things and to treat  them as real issues when planning the demo because they are issues the public is concerned about. Anyway, tobacco is by far the biggest health risk cannabis users face: tobacco kills, pure cannabis doesn’t,  it’s as simple and real as that.

As I say, I don’t think any of this was intentional and I hope people will learn from the experience for next year. But as regards the age issue, yes, this campaign does need to be a aimed at adults. As far as the 420 day goes this is criticism well meant which should be taken seriously. The decision CLEAR has taken to restrict its Facebook page and website to over 18s is the right one. The reason we are doing this is simple, we don’t want to involve children in our campaign to change the cannabis laws. Probably the most important component of cannabis law reform is to enable age restrictions on sale of cannabis. It is no part of our campaign to appeal to or to involve children.

420 Day, Kids, Cannabis, Tobacco And The Future Of The Campaign - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

___________________________

I’m 23 years old and I have Diabetes, Usher syndrome (Retinits Pigmentosa),which means vision and hearing impairment and suffer many bouts of depression (Mainly caused by disabilities). I have been to the GP a few times with my depression and only got referrals which led to nothing being done about it, which led me to cannabis use.

I will never work due to my eyesight and hospital appointments which are every 2-3 weeks or so (I’m on ESA), which leaves me doing nothing but torture myself in front of my computer 24/7. My diabetes isn’t so much a problem but my appetite is helped by mild cannabis use.

Anyway, I started taking cannabis around 5-6 years ago for recreational use occasionally, so I knew what I was getting into once I started back up again for self treatment for depression.

I live with my mother of whom I care very much for (we haven’t had the easiest of lives), she doesn’t mind me taking cannabis except she gets very concerned about it being illegal and doesn’t want me to get into trouble with the law which I understand but it shouldn’t be that way. (she’s also my carer due to my eyesight)

Benefits of cannabis to me;

Depression: Cannabis makes a huge difference in my life; it gives me motivation, an appetite, a thirst for knowledge, I take an interest in many things that I wouldn’t normally do due to me beating myself up in my head, it keeps me focused and makes me FAR more sociable except the fact that I walk around wondering if the law enforcement are going to smell anything on me, which myself and many others shouldn’t have to worry about since we’re doing no harm. I also do not want to be taking prescription drugs as I’ve heard far too many horrific stories and seen too many character changes. Cannabis keeps me away from the dark thoughts I get and moves me towards the positive in life.

Hearing Impairment: I actually hear things a lot better/clearer and am very surprised no-one has approached the subject anywhere unless I missed something.

Appetite: As already stated, mild use helps a lot, I’m actually a fussy eater (sorry mum!) and through cannabis use I have tried and ate different things.

Here’s where it gets interesting…

Usher syndrome (Retinitis pigmentosa): Over the years of off and on cannabis use (prices, accessibility in the UK are horrendous), cannabis alleviates the constant static around my eyes, makes light less glarey, darkness more radiant and colours stick out more regardless of shades. I’ve tried googling this topic but most of it is aimed at actual scientists rather than someone who just wants information and it seems lackluster regarding research.

My association with anyone that deals in cannabis (mostly small amounts making me small fish) can be quite worrying to a point, because cannabis is illegal there’s a stigma that “Dealers = Criminals” and that makes people either a) Unaware (Yes, those people that still call it wacky baccy and get all repulsive) and b) Paranoid, even like myself at times. It gets rather panicky online at times if I may say so.

I don’t want to get myself in trouble, I’m not harming anyone.

I drink far less alcohol which brings me to my next point, cigarettes (nicotine). I don’t have willpower to stop smoking tobacco because of the weight and price problems in the UK and/or any other country (All the best to the mayor in Copenhagen) which forces us to smoke tobacco with it, making it more harmful. Let’s say I bought 1 gram, it costs £10 and it doesn’t even touch 0.7-0.8 occasionally 0.6, or when they can’t get any decent stuff which doesn’t make it last that long.

Fortunately no, I’ve not had any run ins with the police however they’re aware that I’ve taken cannabis when dealing with my previous charges, which were a fairly long time ago so I’m happy with that. There has also been worries of “spiking”. Only once I’ve experienced that and it wasn’t a good time, still don’t know what it was to this day.

A Medicinal Users Story - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

We had a long discussion and covered every aspect of the campaign and the concerns of CLEAR members and supporters. In particular, I explained how we believe that the effect of the campaign will be to drive the market further into the hands of organised crime as people growing a few plants for themselves are scared into giving up and returning to street dealers.

I explained how organised crime gangs use sophisticated ventilation and filtering equipment to prevent any smell escaping and that it is the small grower who is likely to be caught as a result of the campaign. Obviously, I didn’t expect Crimestoppers suddenly to reverse their position but I was listened to with great courtesy, even on the wider subject of how cannabis prohibition actually increases crime and creates victims. I also explained how important access to cannabis is for many people who need it as medicine and how the Sativex scandal denies this to all but a very few.

In turn, Crimestoppers explained the aim of their campaign being to find criminals involved in commercial cannabis cultivation and using it as a means to fund serious organised crime which devastates the safety of people and their communities.

We agreed to exchange information in about three months time on how the campaign has worked. That means that CLEAR needs feedback from you. We need to know any information you have on the impact of the campaign. Do you know of anyone who has been caught growing as a result of someone reporting them having used the scratch ‘n’ sniff cards?

Any information you can provide will of course be treated in confidence and no identity information will be revealed but providing feedback could be helpful to our cause.

This is the intelligent and constructive way forward to reform. We must work within the system to overturn the cruel and irrational laws against cannabis. That won’t be achieved by marching in the streets or by rallies. However much fun they are, that’s all they are. The serious work of law reform is about engaging with agencies such as Crimestoppers and educating them about the reality of cannabis.

Please contact CLEAR with any information you have.

Crimestoppers Scratch ‘N’ Sniff Cannabis Campaign. An Update. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

_______________________________________

Oh Canada… Those are the first words of our national anthem as well as the first thought that comes to mind when reflecting on a country that was once leading the fight against marijuana prohibition.

You see, while a number of states in the U.S. seem to be getting all the attention these days when it comes to the legalization of marijuana, most people don’t realize how hard the federal government of Canada has been working on revamping the regulations that dictate access to cannabis in our country.

And what might that be, you ask? Well, let me tell you. First off, early last year, the Conservative government of Canada – under leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper – passed what was known as the “omnibus crime bill,” which imposed harsher penalties and mandatory jail time for drug offenders.

“Drug offenders” meaning anyone who grows more than six marijuana plants. Only six marijuana plants? Heck, that’s hardly enough to get you through college, not to mention the generous amounts required by most medical cannabis patients.

Yet, the passage of this crime bill came as a shock to many Canadians, I included, as harsher cannabis laws are exactly what Canadians say they don’t want. According to the results of last year’s public poll, 65% of adults in Canada say they support nationwide legalization or decriminalization of cannabis (1).

So why is it that the Tories feel the need to institute mandatory jail time for relatively harmless marijuana growers? It could just be a shot at the Liberal Party, who released a draft policy paper outlining their recommendation for marijuana legalization just a few months earlier (2). The paper highlighted the economic benefits of regulating and taxing the recreational market for cannabis, which is estimated to be around $4 billion dollars at present time. Nearly 80% of the party’s members voiced their support for the legalization of cannabis at their biennial convention last year.

While a majority Conservative government is set to remain in power for at least the next two years, it’s encouraging to note that they plan on taking a more relaxed approach to medical cannabis very soon… Very, very soon, in fact.

Just last December, Health Canada – Canada’s federal health division – announced (3) their proposal to dramatically alter the way Canadians have access to medical cannabis, which is set to come into effect within the next few months. The proposed changes come in the form of the new Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), which will replace the outdated Marihuana Medical Access Program (MMAP) that has severely restricted access to medical marijuana for Canadians over the past ten or so years.

Although the Tories’ new crime bill runs counter to the growing support for easier access to marijuana in Canada, the MMPR appears to be a beacon of hope for the significant number of Canadians who use cannabis as a medicine. Unfortunately, under the current MMAP, this number has yet to pass 30,000 (3) due to the unnecessary restraints that patients face in obtaining authorization to access medical cannabis. On the other hand, public surveys show (4) that over 400,000 Canadians use cannabis as a medical treatment, which is vastly supplied by the underground drug market. However, the new MMPR is about to change all of that.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the MMPR is the ease of access that potential patients will soon enjoy when attempting to gain access to Canada’s medical marijuana system. Under the old system, patients had to obtain lengthy health documents from a doctor, and in most cases a specialist, before they could even apply for federal authorization. On the other hand, the new MMPR requires patients to obtain only a single note that can be provided by any licensed practitioner. Not only is this an easier process for patients and doctors, but it also eliminates the need to obtain confirmation from Health Canada – a step that can sometimes take months to complete.

What’s more is that the new system will allow any licensed producer to grow and sell medical marijuana to patients who submit a prescription. Under the old MMAP, Health Canada was the only source of medical cannabis, which many patients found to be unsatisfactory. By creating a commercial market for medical cannabis, the federal government is forming a brand new industry that they project will generate over $1 billion in annual sales by 2024. A billion dollars? Cue the capitalists on this one.

With the promise of such a lucrative market for medical marijuana, a number of Canadians have already announced their intentions of becoming a licensed supplier as soon as the regulations are finalized. This includes Ross Rebagliati (5) – Canada’s own Gold medalist snowboarder – who was temporarily stripped of his Olympic medal after testing positive for THC back in 1998.

Even still, it seems as though us Canadian’s still have some time to wait until we can rush to our doctors for a cannabis prescription. Although the new MMPR is set to come into effect by “Spring 2013″ (6), things have been all too quiet since Health Canada’s announcement in December.

Despite the hold-up, I remain hopeful that one day Canada will lead the way in medical cannabis research and policy reform, as countries around the world begin to realize the consequences of prohibiting this wonderfully medical plant. Until then, I guess I’ll have to put up with the side-effects of pharmaceuticals and hope that I live to see the day when Health Canada allows easier access to medical marijuana. Well, at least Spring 2013 isn’t too far away, according to my calendar, that is.

Sources:
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/21/canada-marijuana-laws-decriminalization_n_2170399.html
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/28/marijuana-legalization-liberal-party-canada_n_2567316.html
(3) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2012/2012-193-eng.php
(4) http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/28/pol-mckie-medical-marijuana-talks.html
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/23/ross-rebagliati-marijuana-store-gold-whistler_n_2537149.html
(6) http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/future-avenir/transition-eng.php

Oh Canada! Why Are You Taking So Long to Legalise Cannabis? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Theresa May, Home Secretary, 7th March 2013

The government’s response to the HASC drugs inquiry report ‘Breaking the Cycle’ is exactly what you would expect from an administration that is most concerned with appeasing the press and special interest lobby groups, particularly Big Booze.

The truth is that the health and wellbeing of the British people and the stability of our society is at the bottom of Theresa May’s priorities.  Is there anything more stupid, more transparently corrupt, than a claim to base policy on evidence but immediately to rule out what all the evidence points to?

One day soon, the great immoral evil that is prohibition will be over.  Then those who have whored themselves out to it and compromised all their personal integrity in its name will be seen for who they really are.

Download the government’s response here. (It’s an object lesson in obfuscation and doublespeak)

Doublespeak From The Woman Who Runs Britain’s Irrational And Dangerous Drugs Policy. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

SCRAs and ‘legal highs are the product of prohibition.  It is David Cameron, Theresa May and the dangerous, irresponsible policies of our government which are responsible for these nasty substances flooding our country. If cannabis were legally available, even under stringent regulations,  there would be no demand for SCRAs.

The surge in ‘legal highs’, not only those that seek to substitute for cannabis but also those that mimic cocaine or MDMA, reveals the truth about our government and those that make drugs policy.  They care not at all about users’ health.  Their irresponsible policies actually cause harm, particularly to young people.

Doctors have coined the term ‘excited delirium’ for the effects seen from SCRAs.  There is good evidence they can cause heart palpitations, seizures, vomiting, severe anxiety, paranoid delusions, violent tendencies and even death.

One of  the difficulties is that the retailer where you choose to buy rolling papers, grinders, pipes, vapourisers or other cannabis accessories will also be selling legal highs. It’s easy to have some sympathy with individual retailers, on the high street or online, who, in tough times, need to keep their businesses afloat.  The real villains are the distributors who import unidentifiable white powders, usually from China, and then package them for sale with no information about contents, dosage or safety. Often, even if sold as legal, they contain chemicals which have already been banned and so could easily land  you in just as much trouble as a bit of weed.

Real cannabis is much, much safer. We know that mankind has used cannabis safely and effectively for more than 5,000 years.  Just as our ridiculous drug laws have led to dirty needles, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C amongst opiate addicts, so now even those who choose relatively harmless substances are in real danger.

CLEAR’s EX-SCRA campaign aims to expose the truth about SCRAs but now we must take it further.  We will be publishing a blacklist  of retailers and distributors engaged in this irresponsible and evil trade.  This will be updated regularly as we receive new information. We will also be promoting and endorsing  retailers and distributors who stand against SCRAs.  They will be entitled to display a CLEAR EX-SCRA logo on their advertisements, websites and shop premises. They are the people you should give your business to.

We cannot rely on a malevolent and irresponsible government to protect us so we must take responsibility ourselves.  Let’s expose the truth about SCRAs and the people and companies that profit out of them. Let’s drive them out of Britain!

Fight for the right for REAL cannabis!

We Must Be CLEAR About The Dangers Of ‘Synthetic Cannabis’ - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

——————————–

My Thoughts On The Cannabis Debate

Max Fernandez

The question as to whether or not Cannabis should be ‘legalised’ has many layers, amongst which are lies, deceit, profits and victims. The campaign to effectively ban Cannabis has raged for many years, and has cost the lives of thousands of people. In the process of doing so however, politicians and cartel gang members have made hundreds of millions of pounds worth of profit.

Not only have politicians and gangsters profited, but so too have average hard working members of society; police men and women, as well as prison officers have found themselves in high demand by the political class. This in turn has created an incentive to further the so called ‘war on drugs’.

The media throughout the United Kingdom are often slow to criticise the lack of success which has been brought because of the war, and if criticism is placed on the government, they will try to encourage a harsher approach to the plant i.e. longer sentences for possession.

I myself support the idea that by legalising Cannabis, both for medicinal and recreational purposes, the Cannabis market can be controlled and regulated with much more ease. Imprisoning thousands of people, many of whom are otherwise law abiding, hard working productive members of society, whilst the drug kingpins become wealthy, simply defies logic.

There is hope for the Cannabis legalisation proponents, the recent democratic results in Washington and Colorado, where Cannabis was legalised for both medicine and enjoyment, means that opinions are changing. 2014 shall be another huge year as far as American Cannabis law reform is concerned.

After completing many hours of research into how the Cannabis legalisation campaign is conducted, both domestically and globally, I have come to the conclusion that the medical argument is the key to our success. I do believe that the vast majority of people, even those who are totally against the legalisation for recreational use, are able to be convinced of the success medical Cannabis can (and does) have. The majority of people would agree that imprisoning a man suffering with Cancer, for growing Cannabis plants to relieve his pain, is fundamentally immoral and cruel.

Much more focus should be applied to this side of the debate. Simply on moral grounds, opponents to medical Cannabis are at an immediate disadvantage. Pressure must be placed on the media and politicians to seriously consider this idea, and to have an open and honest debate as to the merits of the cause.

Once medical Cannabis is available (like nearly every other European country), people will be able to see firsthand that Cannabis has been lied about by the corrupt political media, and that its benefits outweigh its potential harms. The states in the USA that legalised medicinal Cannabis have gradually become more tolerant of Cannabis, and those who choose to consume it.

Usually attitudes soften due to the profits being made throughout their local areas. Many people have become employed because of the medicinal Cannabis industry. Illegal dealers also make fewer profits as a result of their sick customers choosing to buy from a legal outlet. Countries that have legalised medical Cannabis have been able to apply tax on it, allowing for greater spending in education and health.

Our campaign to see an end to prohibition will also need to be well funded. Politics has never been a fair field; those with the money tend to get their way. In truth, our campaign will never be as well funded as those who seek to stop us, but the more money that is raised the better. The more people that can be convinced to give their money to help us see an end this corrupt war, the easier our aims will become to implement.

It is a well known fact that recession makes society more willing to make riskier investments into their futures. Our economic argument should focus on Jeremy Bentham’s idea of Utilitarianism. Our sole economic mission is to inform the public of this. Poorer members of society will likely warm to this philosophy.

To conclude, I believe that our next main focus should be to see medicinal Cannabis legalised throughout the United Kingdom. This campaign will need to be in association with our American counterparts, as well as other global networks.

Close attention will also have to be paid as to how Washington and Colorado deal with Cannabis legalisation. Portugal and Uruguay are also examples where successes can be found and communicated with the general public.

A Personal Perspective On The Cannabis Debate - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

What could be difficult with that? It goes on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Drugscope - which describes itself:

We are the leading UK charity supporting professionals working in drug and alcohol treatment, drug education and prevention and criminal justice. We are also the primary source of independent information on drugs and drug related issues.

Drugscope is, to be fair, the place most people would go for a definitive answer to drug issues, although it’s emphasis on prevention and criminal justice might make cannabis users justifiably cautious.

On New Years day, Drugscope issued the following tweet

K2, Spice, Salvia, Bath Salts… How much do you know about emerging drugs? Fact sheets from NIDA

Now when Drugscope recommend a factsheet it is usually worth checking out and both UKCIA and CLEAR have an interest in the first couple of substances mentioned: K2 and Spice. These two substances are “SCRA’s” – Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists to give them their full name. Both UKCIA and CLEAR run an information campaign about these substances called “Ex-SCRA – exposing Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists” (here), so I followed the link provided by Drugscope which pointed to the NIDA website

Now, NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) is not an objective website, it’s run by the American government and it’s stated aim is to provide information on “The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction”. The use of the term “drug abuse” gives a hint to NIDA’s agenda; all use is abuse. But what of the facts it provides about SCRA’s?. The page is here

“Spice” refers to a wide variety of herbal mixtures that produce experiences similar to marijuana (cannabis) and that are marketed as “safe,” legal alternatives to that drug. Sold under many names, including K2, fake weed, Yucatan Fire, Skunk, Moon Rocks, and others — and labeled “not for human consumption” — these products contain dried, shredded plant material and chemical additives that are responsible for their psychoactive (mind-altering) effects.

This is true, but somewhat shallow information for the professionals Drugscope is pointing towards this site. What it carefully doesn’t say is that these products are designed to look like real cannabis, or at least some magical alternative herb. They are real prohibition products, on the market to cash in ont he drugs policy NIDA is a part of.

Be-cause (sic) the chemicals used in Spice have a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has designated the five active chemicals most frequently found in Spice as Schedule I controlled substances, making it illegal to sell, buy, or possess them.

This illustrates the way the drug laws work rather better than a similar statement in the UK would do. The reason they are banned in the US is because people enjoy using them – the “high potential for abuse”. of course they have – they are marketed as being an alternative to the most popular prohibited drug in existence; cannabis. We know a lot about cannabis and we know that most if not all of the scare stories we’ve heard are lies.

Now there are good reasons for being concerned about SCRA’s, they are, after all chemicals which play around in the brain about which we know very little. They are all new chemicals, untested and with unknown long term consequences. Most importantly, despite the way they’re packaged up and marketed, they are not cannabis. Not in any way shape or form are they cannabis.

However, NIDA tells us

Spice products do contain dried plant material, but chemical analyses show that their active ingredients are synthetic (or designer) cannabinoid compounds.

This is, simply, wrong. SCRA’s are not cannabinoids and should not be presented as being so. A cannabinoid is

any of various chemical constituents (as THC) of cannabis or marijuana

SCRA’s have never seen the inside of a cannabis plant, they are totally artificial man made chemicals. They are not “synthetic (or designer) cannabinoid compounds”. The correct term for them is “Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists” because of the effect they have on the brain, not on the nature of the drug itself. Although not Cannabinoids, they act on the Cannabinoid receptors – the same part of the brain cannabis affects. This isn’t a pedantic point, what these chemicals actually do when they interact with the Cannabinoid receptors is anyone’s guess. Understanding why that is important is key to understanding why SCRA’s are so dangerous.

Drugscope prides itself in providing hard facts about drugs, yet links to third rate information like this.

Another drug information source is HIT – the Liverpool based drugs agency. HIT is running a one-day course on cannabis:

What’s the Deal on… Cannabis? (S-CAN)
Date: Wed 23 Jan
Duration: 1 days
Location: Liverpool
Tutor: Alan Matthews

The blurb states

Cannabis has been utilised by human beings for millennia, both for its psychoactive properties and its fibres. In fact, some archaeologists believe it was the first plant to be cultivated by man, even before we were growing plants for food. But over the past 100 years this humble plant has, by turns, been glorified and vilified. What is it about cannabis that so confounds us?

So far so good

This one-day course takes an in-depth look at the history, pharmacology, effects and risks of cannabis. Its present day status will be explored in the light of its social use, medicinal application and potential for harm. For those wishing to reduce or stop their cannabis use, practical steps will be considered on how best to address cannabis-related problems and initiate and support behaviour change.

Now any factual examination of cannabis should also include the reasons why people enjoy using it socially and the benefits they get from it as well as the dangers. Will this course examine the destructive effects of the current prohibition policy?

The learning outcomes are listed as

To review the historical context and current cultural relevance of cannabis
To understand the pharmacological actions of cannabis in lay terms
To clarify the latest information on cannabis-related problems
To consider treatment options and how best to support behaviour change

Doesn’t sound like it.

Finally, a quick mention for The Sun – that trusty source of information from the home of reliable news, Rupert Murdoch’s News International. The Sun is hardly worth the title of a “Newspaper”, indeed it usually makes the Daily Mail look intellectual and hard core left wing. The Sun is the definition of the gutter press and its latest cannabis shock horror has driven it to new lows.

Don’t go soft on cannabis…it turned me into a thieving heroin addict

Straight out of the 1950′s campaign of misinformation and hype. The story concerns Ocean Hanna – that’s her name – who tells of how cannabis ruined her life:

Speaking exclusively to The Sun, the recovering addict, now 22, says: “For people with addictive personalities or who need to fill a void, legalising cannabis could be so dangerous.

“My problems started with alcohol. I moved on to cannabis, then cocaine, and eventually heroin.

Hang on. She started with alcohol, then cannabis? So her “gateway” to harmful drug use was alcohol then? It’s an interesting variation on the “cannabis opened the door to drugs” story we usually get.

In June 2008, Ocean moved to Oxford, she was due to start the course in September that year. But within a matter of weeks she fell in with the wrong crowd and started drinking heavily, as well as smoking cannabis. This eventually led to her snorting cocaine.

So we can see how it was cannabis that caused all her troubles and we can be thankful that prohibition did such a good job of protecting her.

Quite how the Sun draws the conclusions it does from this story isn’t obvious to put it mildly. Perhaps the paper is worried by the support for drug law reform its readers showed recently and is doing its best to do something about it.

Don’t buy he Sun.

Who to trust for reliable information? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

After the disgraceful misinformation and false science about cannabis printed in The Independent last week, I made direct contact with Chris Blackhurst the editor. He was gracious enough to invite me to submit an article or a letter for publication and so I set to and turned round 700 words in just a couple of hours.

Immediately the attitude changed.  There was no courtesy, no more interest, my calls and emails weren’t returned.

The Independent’s anti-cannabis campaign last week breached the Editors’ Code repeatedly.  It published “inaccurate, misleading and distorted information”.  It failed entirely to “distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. Actually it did exactly the opposite, deliberately confusing the three to scaremonger, sensationalise and mislead.

All this in the week when the Leveson report was published.  The Independent and all newspapers operate in brazen and blatant defiance of their spurious and insincere ‘self-regulation’.  It is a total failure and nothing but a licence for a corrupt press to print whatever it wants.

I am preparing a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission but I know what it will do.  It will do what it was designed for.  It will pay lip service to considering my complaint and then, instead of enforcing the Editors’ Code, it will find excuses for where it has been breached.

So here is the piece I wrote for The Independent.  It is the truth and it exposes the lies and deception that Mr Blackhurst printed last week. 

Throughout the world, rates of schizophrenia and psychosis have been declining for the last 50 years. Simultaneously, consumption of cannabis has skyrocketed. It is also true that average THC levels in cannabis have increased two or three fold since the 1970s, although stronger varieties of cannabis have always been available.

So any suggestion that cannabis causes schizophrenia or psychosis just doesn’t add up. Neither does the scientific evidence support this.

Professor Sir Robin Murray is only one of many eminent scientists working in this field and he holds the most extreme opinion which is why Patrick Cockburn only adduces his words as evidence. Others interpret the evidence very differently:

“Cannabis has been used safely for many thousands of years…there have been concerted efforts to demonise the drug’s use.” - Professor Tim Kirkham, psychologist, Liverpool University.

“I don’t think it causes mental illness. I have never seen a case of so-called cannabis psychosis.” -  Dr Trevor Turner, former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

“I don’t see a lot of problem cannabis users…we’re not seeing a lot of cannabis users presenting for treatment.”  - Dr Clare Gerada, chair, Royal College of General Practitioners.

Perhaps the most valuable study, specifically about schizophrenia, comes from the University of Bristol in 2009 (Hickman, Zammit and Lewis). It is a review of all published evidence so, by definition, not cherry picked. It acknowledges that no causal link can be shown so looks at the risk involved. It shows that to prevent one case of schizophrenia or psychosis you would have to stop 7500 heavy users or 30,000 light users ever using cannabis in their life.

The risks are therefore infinitesimally small. To put the whole debate in perspective, there are 750 hospital admissions each year for cannabis but 3000 for peanuts. We spend £500 million each year on the criminal justice system for cannabis alone when perhaps it would be better spent stamping out peanuts?

Of course if you make the comparison with alcohol the gap is even wider Over one million hospital admissions each year with around 47,000 for mental health issues and alcohol is proven to be a direct cause of psychosis. The facts are that anyone in Britain is six times more likely to experience mental health problems associated with alcohol than with cannabis.

The truth is perhaps best expressed by Professor Terrie Moffitt of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College who said in August 2012 “cannabis is safe for over-18 brains but risky for under-18 brains”.

This highlights the real issue. The disastrous policy of prohibition followed by successive governments means that in Britain we have more children using cannabis and the lowest age at first use in Europe. Why? Because the only ID a dealer asks for is a £20 note.

We urgently need to introduce legal regulation of cannabis in order to protect children, fight crime and enable police to concentrate on real wrongdoing instead of crimes that only exist because of a misguided and failed government policy. The UK cannabis market is worth in excess of £6 billion per annum. We consume more than three tons of cannabis every single day. All this is in the hands of criminals at present. Under legal regulation it would create thousands of new jobs and new tax revenue which could be spent on drugs education as well as schools and hospitals.

Professor David Nutt said recently that a legally regulated cannabis market could lead to a 25% reduction in alcohol consumption which would transform public health. It is of course the alcohol industry which is behind the continuing prohibition of cannabis. It is terrified of a healthier and safer alternative to its poisonous products.

Most urgently we need to allow doctors to prescribe medicinal cannabis, the evidence for which is now overwhelmingly positive. Apart from France, Britain is the only country in Europe which denies this relief to sick and disabled people. Remarkably though, Britain is the only country in the world that has licensed a pharmaceutical company to grow huge quantities of cannabis to make the medicine called ‘Sativex’, even though the Home Office says “there is no medicinal value in cannabis”. Sativex is an extremely concentrated form of cannabis containing 51% THC. Strangely enough, there is no warning label on the bottles claiming that it may cause schizophrenia or psychosis.

The Truth About Cannabis That The Independent Refuses To Print. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

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

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

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