02 Sep Whose Money Is UCL Wasting On Pointless Cannabis Research?

white-female-inhaling-marijuana-pipe_4800The Times reports “Stone me: cannabis users don’t like hard work”

The Independent says “Getting high on cannabis makes you less likely to work hard for money, study says”

The mendacious Daily Mail claims: “How just one cannabis joint harms your will to work: Fears long-term drug use could harm motivation even when not high”

Utterly pointless research. Such results can be determined by common sense and experience.

UCL has a habit of frittering money away on pointless research into cannabis.

First of all we had the reckless overdosing  of Jon Snow for the Channel 4 Drugs Live programme, equivalent to asking a teetotaller to drink a bottle of scotch in 10 minutes – set up purely for sensationalism and tabloid headlines. Results? Cannabis was shown to be very safe for 95% of people – as if we didn’t know that already.

Currently Prof Val Curran is studying whether cannabis can be used to treat cannabis dependency.  Yes, seriously, Sativex, the cannabis oil mouthspray, is being trialled to see if it can help people give up smoking cannabis!!  Not that cannabis dependency is anything like a serious problem anyway.  Fewer regular users of cannabis become dependent on it than regular users of coffee become dependent on caffeine.  Incredibly the University of Sydney is also conducting an identical trial.

Now we have this absurd study on motivation.  Why do people use cannabis?  To relax of course, so hardly surprising they become less motivated, that is the point! And the study showed that motivation returns to normal levels after smoking!  You really couldn’t make it up that so-called scientists waste their time on this sort of nonsense.

What we need is some constructive research on the therapeutic benefits of cannabis. In the 34 US states that permit medicinal use, expenditure on dangerous and addictive pharmaceutical painkillers has plummeted by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now that would be something sensible to look into.  But maybe it doesn’t suit the agenda of whoever provides UCL with money to conduct its frivolous and pointless studies?

Listen to me interviewed on Talk Radio about this latest study.

  • AnthonyTuffin
    Posted at 12:41h, 02 September Reply

    Did you know Peter Reynolds was posting highly controversial messages about this subject not as a private individual but as your President?

    This seems very inappropriate as I’m sure some CLEAR members would like to leave the EU and others would like to remain in it. I can’t believe CLEAR has an official policy on Brexit.

    His view, expressed as CLEAR’s, is:

    “There’s nothing nebulous about Brexit at all. It means we are leaving the EU. How our political leaders negotiate that is the power we delegate to them.

    As for remainers they’re perfectly entitled to continue to express their views and they do so with tedious and frequent repetition. The idea that they are being censored or denied free speech is laughable, they’re everywhere, whining and whinging incessantly.”

    Although he is entitled to hold and express that view, is it CLEAR’s?

    You can visit
    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/08/30/the-brexit-censorship-campaign?fb_comment_id=1027612557352672_1029846003795994&comment_id=1027643494016245&reply_comment_id=1029846003795994#f1b6d2c8038fa6c if you would like to check the quotation.

    • Peter Reynolds
      Posted at 15:17h, 02 September Reply

      CLEAR doesn’t have a position on Brexit, Anthony. We have members and supporters from all points on the political compass who join together to fight the evil that is cannabis prohibition.

      I was posting on politics.co.uk from my personal Facebook account. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be able to express my personal opinion? That sounds just like the sort of oppressive policy that the illiberal, anti-democratic oligarchs who run the EU would like to impose!

      Anyway, thanks for your comment but this is the CLEAR website about cannabis law reform. If you want to see lots more of my views on the EU go to my personal website http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk

      • AnthonyTuffin
        Posted at 16:23h, 02 September Reply

        Of course you should be free, in a free country with human rights protected by the ECHR, to express your personal views on Brexit.
        But you described yourself as President of CLEAR, which clearly (excuse the pun) implied that you were writing officially on behalf of CLEAR and CLEAR supported your pro-Brexit views. I felt that CLEAR members, especially those who disagree with you about Brexit, should be aware of what you had done in their collective name.

        I doubt whether it helps CLEAR’s cause to conflate such different issues and that would still be true if you had written in support of remaining in the EU.

        • rusty
          Posted at 16:32h, 03 September Reply

          What makes you think we live in a free country? I can’t smoke a pliff without the police on my case! A grown man told “mo you can’t do that to yourself!” How exactly are we free?

          • AnthonyTuffin
            Posted at 17:25h, 03 September

            The country is free but not anarchic. If you disagree with a law,

          • rusty
            Posted at 17:43h, 03 September

            It’s not a law! It’s an act! Act are given the force of law by consent of the people! I do not give consent! It’s not anarchy! it’s an unjust law period.

          • AnthonyTuffin
            Posted at 21:05h, 03 September

            Acts are law. You may not consent and you are entitled to think it’s unjust. Others may not consent to other laws.

          • rusty
            Posted at 21:20h, 03 September

            No they are not! And you are not a lawyer!

          • AnthonyTuffin
            Posted at 21:31h, 03 September

            Yes they are and nor are you, but I have studied law and you obviously haven’t.
            The Road Traffic Act stipulates speed limits among other things. I suppose you think that Act isn’t law and you don’t need to obey it.
            This discussion is closed.

          • rusty
            Posted at 22:41h, 03 September

            You contract into the road traffic act when buying a car! You don’t know anything! Now it’s closed!!!

          • AnthonyTuffin
            Posted at 08:04h, 04 September
          • rusty
            Posted at 08:47h, 04 September

            Acts are contracts, don’t try the government Web site try the law society to get the real meaning of acts, to different courts one criminal and county, I bet you’ve never read a court document!

          • roman hassler
            Posted at 18:02h, 07 October

            rusty you’re a top lad anthony is just a sheep dog making sure none of the sheep step out of line and realise that its illegal to smoke and cultivate cannbis not unlawful…. law of the land? and who makes things legal and illegal? oh wait those unelected leaders do… right.

          • rusty
            Posted at 19:02h, 07 October

            Exactly! Thanks for posting 🙂

        • Peter Reynolds
          Posted at 13:04h, 04 September Reply

          You really are writing nonsense Anthony. What’s more I cannot understand why you’re so fired up about it.

          My Facebook profile states that I am president of CLEAR. If I post anything on a website like politics.co.uk that uses Facebook commenting, it shows my occupation. I don’t control that, Facebook does and the only way I could stop it is by removing the information from my profile.

          To say you’re making a mountain out of a molehill would be an understatement!

  • rusty
    Posted at 16:30h, 03 September Reply

    Yes! a waste of money, considering the cuts to disable people, the hospitals schools and every other government departments, they do something this stupid!!!

  • maxwood
    Posted at 19:57h, 10 September Reply

    “Why do people use cannabis? To relax of course, so hardly surprising they become less motivated, that is the point.”
    Huh? What happened to Inspirational and Occupational use? What about LEAP Longterm Episopdic Associative Performance memory, the uprush of (seemingly) random ideas which can newly combine into inventions and new services? The presence in mind of an interesting choice of things to do motivates an occupational user.
    What “relaxes” or de-motivates many users might just turn out to be the Carbon Monoxide, which can be AVOIDED by adopting a vaporization-based use rather than $moking-based. Or maybe the Daily Mail advertisers who WANT everyone, especially children, to think cannabis is part of being a passive Consumer ready to gamble money on anything which might make you feel better (which usually means temporarily relieve anxiety). Yes I am saying there are commercial (con + martial) interests who push the big lie that cannabis “relaxes” you because they want you to BUY not cannabis but other stuff they sell you on the relaxation premise. Why do you think they show a picture of a Combustion Joint rather than a vaporization device on their cannabis-related articles?
    Now consider this: a huge demotivating effect of cannabis might be the fact that it is ILLEGAL and that you must KEEP QUIET, avoid advertising the fact that you used any lately– “Secrecy is a demotivational drug (drag).”

  • roman hassler
    Posted at 18:00h, 07 October Reply

    ‘cannabis is seen as a thorn in the side of the cycle of eat sleep work repeat’

    there is more to life people and sometimes cannabis shines this path for some..

Post A Comment