The Drugs Inquiry Must Hear The Truth About Cannabis

here is an paragraph from an email i sent to my MP last week  he has  made so many outlandish claims about cannabis and has referred me to the home office the health minister and others…this is my attempt to put him on the spot

Mr Burt you are my
representative in the
house of commons.If I were able to conclusively prove to you that the
attempts to distinguish cannabis from Sativex is a dishonest
manipulation of the truth would you take up the cudgels on my behalf and
help me dispel the barrage of disinformation which now surrounds this
important issue?

if the answer is no then the next question will be “what good are you”

this is what i wrote hope it aint rambling lol
Dear Mr Vaz,                     I write to you to ask why there seems to be no medical evidence relating to the medical use of cannabis. Some of the speakers who have been against cannabis have told untruths to the panel as they say there is no medical benefits to cannabis. I say they are completely wrong. In America more and more states are going against federal government and allowing medical Cannabis to be sold in regulated shops and allowing medical users with a valid medical card prescribed from a doctor. Stats show that in 12 states there are over 500 thousand medical cannabis users. So why would thousands of doctors who have prescribed cannabis cards to there patients do this if there was no medical benefits? Surely they cant be wrong. Also scientific studies have shown that certain cannabis strains can slow cancer cells down, relieve pain from M.S., eating disorders, insomnia , depression, stress the benefits are endless as there are thousands of strains of cannabis some potent and some less.They say cannabis is linked to mental disorders but how many of these people smoked cannabis properly with no tobacco, as combining the two create a bigger  damaging effect. In the U.K. most people smoke cannabis with tobacco due to high price, quality with the average joint containing 50% cannabis 50% nicotine thus creating something which is highly hazardous to any human being. This also gives the placebo effect of being addicted to weed when in fact you are addicted to mixing cannabis with tobacco. What do they call this as its two drugs combined?? So prohibition of cannabis is going to have a much more damaging effect and kids will still deal on the streets.  The sentencing guidelines seem to have gone soft on cannabis use, giving the image that while still illegal its not as bad as once thought. This is a green light Mr. Vaz   for people to say well its only a fine or a bit of community service if i get caught with cannabis in any form. I bet every hydroponics shop in the country is rubbing there hands as sales are going up. Which is great for the economy and for them. And look what this sentencing change for cannabis has done. Generated money and possible jobs within in the  hydroponics business as more people are growing there own cannabis an estimated 3- 4 hundred thousand U.K citizens growing there own cannabis and you don’t read that in the papers. So if i can buy everything to cultivate cannabis including the SEEDS but cant germinate the seed for it making me a criminal then look at how soft the new sentencing is, would people take the risk as its a fine, low level community order or if you have a medical reason a possible conditional discharge.  This brings me back to the medical aspect of cannabis as certain people may have said at the inquiry that there is no medical use but in the sentencing guidelines you can cite medical issues resulting with a sentence of discharge. So the government already believes there are medical benefits otherwise people could not use this as mitigating circumstances in a court of law thus proving that the prohibitionists are not giving true factual statements to the inquiry. With the prohibitionists its seems to be the same old story every time regarding cannabis but the pro cannabis lobby have new stories to tell everyday and most of them are beneficial and fun for the average human being.Thanks for your time and I hope someone raises the medical benefits of cannabis. And If you would like me to talk about what is happening in our communities regarding cannabis please get in touch. Lets educate our countries children and get them off the streets peddaling drugs.Scott Edwards 

I wish Skott best of luck getting attention drawn to the “mix-with-tobacco” issue which (a) concerns harm caused by the mixture with tobacco, or by tobacco alone, which is being conveniently attributed to the cannabis for political reasons and (b) supposing it increases recruitment of youngsters into nicotine addiction, plays into the hands of politicians because the government ca$hes in on the $igarette sales tax.

I tuned in when I saw the title of the program; but they appeared to devote the airtime to other matters while I was watching…

Skunk – moonshine – making a substance illegal causes more harm than it solves.

Cannabis is a great deal less harmful than alcohol, what more enquiry do you need?

My letter to Lorraine Fullbrook:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/uc1774-iv/uc177401.htm

“Q264 Lorraine Fullbrook: If you legalise or decriminalise cannabis,
you are not taking away the problem. We have seen the other end,
where there is a serious organised crime issue and a narco-terrorism
issue, which ruins people’s lives; I mean murders people and causes
conflict in countries, so we are looking at the other side of this.”

Are you not getting cannabis mixed up with cocaine? The vast
majority of cannabis in Britain is grown here these days as you
know? Often there are other crimes connected to these operations;
like use of illegal immigrants, but that’s not the narco-terrorism
or war you refer to. If I bought some seeds from Holland and grew my
own plants for my own consumption where is ‘the problem’ in that?

“The problem” is the legal status of cannabis, making it extremely
expensive for a dried herb; maybe £160 for an ounce! That’s why
serious organised criminals see it as a great way to make money, the
legal status of the plant makes this viable fund raising for them,
changing the legal status of cannabis will stop this. There will
always be a large amount of people who enjoy cannabis recreationally
– all of us would rather buy cannabis from an off-licence type
outlet instead of running the risks associated with illicit trade -
can you imagine how big an industry that is? Currently in the hands
of criminals, tax exempt, profits going up the chain into the hands
of truly dangerous people.

There are a lot of problems associated with alcohol, tens of
thousands of deaths a year alone is a pretty significant problem -
would you make alcohol illegal to tackle this? It’s been done hasn’t
it, the outcome was Al Capone and moonshine, one of the most
prolific criminals of all time; and probably the worst kind of
alcohol ever made. Indoor cannabis grows make skunk; that’s where it
gets its name from; this is a similar situation to the illegal
alcohol of prohibition – the legal status of the substance made
things significantly worse. I don’t really want skunk; but it is all
I can get.

So back to your statement “If you legalise or decriminalise
cannabis, you are not taking away the problem.”

I disagree – if you legalise cannabis you are taking away a huge
problem; and creating a large legitimate taxable industry, creating
jobs and freeing up police time.

In the meantime, myself and millions of otherwise law-abiding people
will continue to use cannabis recreationally; and buy it from
friends; who buy it from other friends; who somewhere up the chain
buy it from serious organised criminals.
————

I wonder if she will read it …

I thought ‘skunk’ was just another name for indoor grown cannabis, whether it be in soil organically or hydroponically grown. Skunk is just slang for cannabis, but now it seems its become slang for ‘strong’ strains of cannabis. But Skunk as apposed to say, Thai weed, is usually stronger, but there are variants of skunk weaker than Thai weed and vice-versa.  

So to say ALL skunk is stronger than cannabis used 10 years ago is a lie, because each strain has a different THC/CBD level that allot of people ignore. If you research a few of the seed companies that produce the ‘Skunk’ we smoke today, ull see each strain varies. Yes there are certain strains up to 20% THC, but there are also strains with as little as 8 – 12% THC. CBD is usually considered and documented along with THC content. 

So its not like all there is, is this new Strong skunk, because cannabis has always varied in strength and flavor. I’ve done allot of research on individual strains,and there isnt one strain of cannabis as strong as Sativex, Sativex being 27%, the highest THC content I found from seed companies are maximum 25%, and usually that’s a bit of an exaggeration.  Instead of grouping all skunk strains together with new stronger variants, lets look and do research on the strain specific information.

I believe you’ll find that GW claims Sativex is 51% THC!  Not true of course but that’s their spin on it.

Liquid skunk is an excellent term for it which highlights the hypocrisy of current drugs policy.

Skunk is just another word for cannabis, Liquid skunk, weed, ganja, what ever you wanna call it, its Cannabis in a bottle. At 27% THC its a strong high as well. 

Skunk is a breed/strain of cannabis, in the same way OG kush or Blueberry cheese is, It can be strong or it can be whack depending on how its grown although the genetics of the skunk strain do allow high levels of THC but no more than any other good strain. I think the government just decided to call all strong weed “skunk” because the word “skunk” evokes thoughts of something bad, especially in the uneducated. 

Skunk started as a specific strain and back in the day when it was first introduced a new and exciting offering. 

Very quickly it became the generic term used by dealers to describe whatever it was that the growers were adding ground glass to. Regardless of what the seed packet said there was a time when the only green you could buy was “skunk” and thus the name was was also picked up on the street by users and eventually the press to describe overpriced, underweight, stinky, high potency (hopefully), indoor, hydro grown, street quality puff.

The reefer madness group in the prohibition lobby have since instructed their right thinking mates in the press to describe it all as skunk now and to add the rider that just reading about it makes you go mad.

In general, skunk now refers to all herbal cannabis products regardless of strain or type of grow or potency or anything.  It is just a nice little sound bite.  If you were to insist on accuracy then the way the word skunk is used now is to describe more or less any hybrid strain capable of being grown for high THC in the final product.

Derogatory in the sense that is is a name much misused by all sides of the argument.  It is said, by those who have been able to make comparisons, to be exceptionally smelly but other than that there is nothing to particularly distinguish it from any other modern commercial hybrid.

I am sure I read somewhere that the DNA is ultimately owned by GW pharma. Or it can be traced to the same strains from which theirs was derived.  UK420 is the place to get those sorts of questions answered.