Monday, June 18, 2012 -

    Tomorrow, Tuesday, 19th June, Is A Very Important Day For The Cannabis Campaign

    Professor David Nutt

     

    HASC Drugs Inquiry

    Tomorrow, at the HASC drugs inquiry, Professor David Nutt leads the first group of genuinely impartial, expert witnesses.  Until now, with perhaps one exception, all we’ve had have been celebrities, government stooges and the most extreme prohibitionist propagandists.

    First there was Sir Richard who is, of course, very rich.  He’s also a cool cat who appreciates the value of cannabis but, by his own admission, he’s “no expert” and he’s a little confused between “skunk and ordinary marijuana”.  ”Ordinary marijuana” is presumably what some gringo buys from some hispanic hombre in Tijuana.  “Skunk”, apparently, is “too strong”, whatever that means.  The Global Commission is a welcome initiative but it contributes influence rather than expertise.

    The UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC), represented by Roger Howard, is the one honourable exception.  It claims to provide “objective analysis of UK drug policy” and does know the difference between evidence and prejudice.

    Then there was a flush of representatives from the self-serving drug support industry which – surprise, surprise – wants to see a continuance of the status quo and finds it convenient to lump all drugs together as one, with the aim of getting as many new referrals through the door as possible.  The medical establishment in the form of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of GPs followed, never letting evidence or modern science stand in the way of their vested interests or out of date knowledge.

    Expert Witness?

    Then came the entertainment with Russell Brand, dressed to impress, theatrical, controversial and passionate but probably counterproductive.  A crescendo of misinformation, bigotry and prejudice was reached with the joint appearance of Kathy Gyngell, Peter Hitchens and Mary Brett.  On reflection, perhaps it was a good thing to herd them all on at once.  The most blatant lies and extreme propaganda all crammed into one short session.

    Prof. Les Iversen

    So tomorrow is of vital importance.  Professor Nutt and Dr King will, of course, be discussing more than just cannabis, although the recent controversy over the British Lung Foundation report will almost certainly be mentioned.  In the second session, the representatives from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will be more focused on legal highs and their current reviews of khat and cocaine.  However, I am very hopeful that Professor Les Iversen will be asked about the medicinal use of cannabis and I have written to Keith Vaz, chair of the committee suggesting this.

    Watch the hearing live here from 11.00am tomorrow.
    Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

    Related news:

    1. HASC Drugs Inquiry – Evidence Or Spin?
    2. The CLEAR TOKEpure Campaign
    3. The Drugs Inquiry Must Hear The Truth About Cannabis
    4. CLEAR Backs ‘Primary Source Campaign’ in the British Media
    5. HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 2
    • josh1000

      Will definitely be watching this!
      Just a bit unsure whether Professor Les Iversen be asked about the medicinal use of cannabis, even if you have written to Keith Vaz suggesting this.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      Professor Les Iversen is one of the most eminent advocates of cannabis as medicine:

      http://www.clear-uk.org/bringing-cannabis-back-into-the-medicine-cabinet/ 

    • r-o-b-o111

      they wont ask, 
      Professor Les Iversen would say that it should be available for medicinal use, and I have somewhat of a distrust towards the current government in all forms. but i will believe it when i see it

    • georgeclear

      Looking forward to the rundown/results of this on here, as always, detailed and unskewed reports.

    • psmith67

      As long as Prof Nutt tells them that we should go for a Dutch coffee shop style Cannabis system which he has advocated in the past – i will be pleased

       

    • Focusonpeace

      What about the dispensary model in the States?

    • psmith67

       Yep, even better

    • ChristopherSawtell

      Full legalisation please, because it will then be possible to apply all the food and alcohol regulations about labelling, origin, potency, strain, etc., etc. The end user can read the label on the tin and know what is in the tin without any doubt whatsoever. 

      In other words I want to see cannabis available in much the same way as alcohol was before some government of the day opened the alcoholic sluice gates and allowed distilled spirits to be sold from small corner shops and supermarkets. What on earth did said government of the day ingest to alter their thinking to this degree?

      That is to say: I think the availability of cannabis consumption licences should be limited to fully grown, adult, people who should be able to demonstrate a reasonable level of knowledge about the drug. 

      I’d like to see the whole distribution chain licensed, right from the producer or importer right through to the end consumer, by a government agency with a name such as the ‘British Cannabis Control and Distribution Board’. I do not want this activity to be subcontracted out to any private company which will inevitably result in huge conflicts of interest.

      I want to see an end of industrial scale hydroponic production under lights, simply because the use of large amounts of electrical energy for the necessary lights etc. generates huge amounts of green-house gasses. Remember that cannabis is a weed which grows well everywhere. 

      I want to see people, of any age, who have medical conditions and illnesses able to buy, or have prescribed for them, the correct cannabis and quantity thereof for their condition. 

      I want to see people allowed to grow sensible quantities of cannabis strictly for private consumption, by the licensee and adult members of their immediate family, with any surplus they might produce being bought by the Control and Distribution Board if it is of acceptable quality.

      Perhaps the Control and Distribution Board could reduce the licence fee for consumers, if the licencee produced an approved vapouriser when he purchased his licence?

      Making quality cannabis available under the conditions above, will almost certainly eliminate the legal high industry.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      Fantastic proposals Christopher!

    • cshaws

      A valuable debate ruined by ridiculous time constraints.  To me Iverson appeared to be a gutless puppet. Prof Nutt did very well but again severely hampered by time constraints and bimbo schoolgirl politician asking why there aren’t more scientists in parliament.  That seemed to be a time wasting tactic to get David Nutt off topic.  Not disappointing but very frustrating.  

    • Emjaycee

      I missed a large part of professor Nutt addressing the enquiry but caught most of Professor Ivensons address. They spoke a lot about the dangers of legal highs, often far more dangerous than the drugs they are mimicing. One point that i didn’t hear raised but I feel is important is the likelyhood that if some of the original drugs were legalized that the interest & demand for these dangerous legal highs may disappear. In my opinion that is quite likely.

      Let’s hope that this enquiry reaches some sensible conclusions & we get rapid legal access to cannabis for medicinal use & hopefully full legalisation. It is a crime against the people for this to remain illegal & this crime should be stopped now.

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      I agree entirely cshaws.  David did an admirable job.

    • psmith67

      Go David Nutt

      Brilliant stuff

      when will the committee reach it’s conclusions?

      When is it all over and when will new recommendations be made?

      will Parliament need to vote on recommendations? 

      Loved the bit when Nutt said we did this 10 years ago in the same room in front of the
      same committee and hear we are back again – same problem nothings changed

    • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

      The inquiry may go on until the end of the year.  It will submit a report which may or may not be discussed by parliament which may or may not be acted on.

      What I can tell you though is that when reform does arrive, it will be preceded by an inquiry like this.  Therefore, while there are no guarantees, there is no reason not to be optimistic.

    • cshaws

      I’m more convinced each time that this is just a government backed pantomime.  Especially when an expert like David Nutt is accused of wasting time when giving detailed, rational answers to loaded and naive questions. And then that ill informed bimbo goes off track asking why there aren’t more scientists in government but Vaz doesn’t say anything.  I suspect David may have kicked a few hoardings on his way out and I don’t blame him. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002894435353 Oli Nejad

      Absolutely, she was unfairly hostile. Professor Nutt handled all (deliberately) difficult questions with tact and firm honesty. The great thing about streaming such an event online is that so many people now see what the experts have to contend with when trying to influence government. I’m off to Spain I think, this country’s sinking and I want off.

    • Focusonpeace

      Cannot comprehend replacing liver problems with lung problems she basically said. 

      What lung problems? No mention of the Tashkin study. No mention of edibles or vaporizers? No mention of ‘Toking’ pure? She is without knowledge. Cannot take her seriously.

    • ChristopherSawtell

      Thank you for your kind words, and all the ‘likes’.

      I watched the committee in action too. What a bunch of dumb air-heads!I found myself wondering how much money is being wasted on this charade?
      However, I was heartened to hear a more senior member of the committee say that he was in favour of full legalisation. 

      It in now absolutely obvious that if we are going to introduce sensible change, we are going to have to write at least the basis of the new law ourselves.

    • Robert Grantham

      The smart ass comment on lung damage was conceited and showed a lack of understanding and i think the panel made it impossible for David to answer ANY of these questions. He is an academic who is used to peer reviews and debate in educational establishments. Not be ambushed by a panel of politicians who clearly don’t know the first thing about cannabis. The politicians did what they do best and used rhetoric and slyness to achieve the outcome they wanted. This IS a charade if the government cared so much about drug policy they would not be asking their so called “experts” who they fired and largely ignored opinions they would hold a referendum. A very frustrating process for all involved.

    • steve a

       You are missing a wider view of the subject.  The inquiry is about ALL drugs and in that respect ours is no different from any other. 

      Something that should give us comfort is that politicians on all sides of the debate are asking more questions specifically about cannabis. Which means they are already persuaded that it is a special case. A wedge worthy of further enthusiastic hammering I think.

    • Focusonpeace

      The next meeting that takes place should be solely on cannabis and cannabis alone. 
      That way they cant group cannabis with other drugs, and the discussion could be more specific. Talking about its medicinal value, toking pure and non smoking alternatives, the money that could be saved and made, putting dealers out of business, hemp production and more. Why cant we have the US dispensary model? or like Nutt said, Amsterdam style coffee shops? As the people on the panel continue sipping their poison.

    • steve a

       Should ?  Oh yes.  Will? 

      For reasons entirely not to do with the drugs themsleves the debate about all drugs has changed dramatically in the last ten years. Political minds are focused more now than at any time in the history of humanity on money. 

      The talking going on now is about how we deal with a social issue that according to the figures they are happy to make public is worth about 900 billion pounds a year to the planet all told and in money terms cannabis is a junior partner.

      It is not all bad news though. if you accept the holistic approach that not just science is advocating and I do. You will notice when they want to make comparisons, cannabis is the most common illegal drug of choice. 

      When they draw lines we have no choice but to fall one side of it or the other and wherever they draw it, it seems to me we fall more often on the side of, “So just what is your bloody argument against it then?” than anywhere else.  They are doing much of the work for us all we have to do is keep feeding them evidence.

    • Robert Grantham

      Thanks for pointing that out steve sometimes its easy to get frustrated about the lack of progress and attitudes of some backward thinking polititians

    • steve a

      Dealing with the frustration is the most important trick to master when your life involves politicians.  Saints are quite good at it.  Trouble is; whatever my mum thinks, I ain’t no Saint.

    • Focusonpeace

      True, Most informed people see the bigger picture and know legalization and regulation makes sense. 

      An educated person would see how ignorant Michael Ellis, Nicola Blackwood, Fullbrook and Clappison are, with their stupid questions and pathetic attempts of hostility, But in my opinion they may as well of been playing devils advocate, and Professor Nutt handled it well.