United Kingdom

[budman]

Prosecutors take a tough line on cannabis supplied to relieve pain
<ul>
<li>Up to 30% of MS sufferers estimated to use drug </li>

<li>Four linked to support groups face charges</li>
</ul>
Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday July 17, 2006

Guardian

Prosecutors are taking a firm line on the supply of cannabis for pain relief to people with chronically painful conditions such as multiple sclerosis, despite the downgrading of the drug from class B to class C.

Two crown court trials, one starting this week and one next week, will accuse four individuals of supplying illegal drugs through the organisations Bud Buddies and THCforMS (Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for Multiple Sclerosis).

THCforMS says on its website that it has supplied 33,000 bars of cannabis chocolate to bona fide MS sufferers over the last five years. Mark Gibson, Lezley Gibson and Marcus Davies of THCforMS face a charge of conspiracy to supply cannabis in a trial that begins next Wednesday at Carlisle crown court.

Bud Buddies offered a number of cannabis preparations including cannabis cream for topical application to anyone with a proven medical need.

Its founder, Jeffrey Ditchfield, faces nine charges of cultivation and supply of cannabis, including a charge of supplying a cannabis plant received by John Reid, now home secretary, in November 2005. His trial starts on July 24 at Mold crown court. All four face maximum sentences of 14 years in prison.

Estimates suggest that between 10% and 30% of MS sufferers in Europe use cannabis to alleviate the pain and distressing symptoms of the disease.

Many say it alleviates their symptoms where ordinary prescription drugs have failed. Few medicines are effective for treating MS, which affects around 85,000 people in the UK.

MS patients say the prosecutions, if successful, will close down this route to help, while the government drags its heels on licensing a cannabis-based drug.

Sativex, a cannabis-derived medicine which can be sprayed under the tongue, has been available in Canada since 2001. In March 2003, GW Pharmaceuticals submitted a product licence application for Sativex to the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

But despite evidence in small-scale clinical trials that the cannabis derivative THC relieves pain, no licence has been forthcoming. A three-year trial to test whether cannabis derivatives slow the progress of MS as well as alleviating symptoms is just getting under way.

The Home Office announced last November that the drug could be imported and prescribed by doctors on a "named patient" basis while still unlicensed but few patients who have asked for it have been able to get it, according to a survey by Disability Now.

A cannabis-using MS sufferer who asked not to be named said her request to be prescribed Sativex had been turned down. "I find it inconceivable that the CPS sees these prosecutions as in the public interest when there is still no legal way for the people who are helped by cannabis to obtain and use it," she added.

The British Medical Association said in a 1997 report: "While research is under way the police, the courts and prosecuting authorities should be aware of the medicinal reasons for the unlawful use of cannabis by those suffering from certain medical conditions for whom other drugs have proved ineffective."

But the Crown Prosecution Service has continued to prosecute both users and suppliers of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Some have been convicted. But others were found not guilty after successfully raising the defence of "necessity", which allows an illegal act to avert a greater harm - in their cases, severe pain.

Those acquitted included a man with spinal injuries who set up a medical marijuana cooperative, and a doctor who supplied her daughter, whose illness was not specified.

But the appeal court closed off the defence of necessity last year, ruling in six test cases that it did not apply to the use of cannabis to relieve chronic pain.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[Midnight toker]

Europe: Britain Goes After Medical Marijuana Suppliers 7/21/06

The Drug War Chronicle


In two separate trials, one beginning this week and one beginning next week, British authorities are prosecuting medical marijuana providers under the country's drug laws, the Guardian reported. The continued prosecution of medical marijuana providers comes despite the government's downgrading of marijuana from a Class B drug to the less serious Class C in 2004.

Four members of Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for Multiple Sclerosis (THCforMS( faced charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana this week in crown court in Carlisle. THCforMS supplies free cannabis exclusively to MS sufferers and says on its web site it has handed out 33,000 cannabis chocolate bars to patients.

Next week, Bud Buddies founder Jeffrey Ditchfield goes on trial in Mold crown court on nine counts of cultivation and distribution of cannabis. Bud Buddies offers a number of marijuana preparations for anyone with a proven medical need and requires documentation of that need from a physician.

Under current British marijuana law, all of the defendants mentioned face up to 14 years in prison.

Meanwhile, life has become more difficult for as many as 30% of British MS sufferers who use the herb to alleviate the pain and spasms associated with the disease. One of those patients, who asked not to be identified, said she had applied to use the marijuana tincture Sativex on a trial basis, but was turned down. The preparation is currently undergoing a three-year trial. "I find it inconceivable that the crown sees these prosecutions as in the public interest when there is still no legal way for the people who are helped by cannabis to obtain and use it," she said.

The British Medical Association said in a 1997 report: "While research is under way the police, the courts and prosecuting authorities should be aware of the medicinal reasons for the unlawful use of cannabis by those suffering from certain medical conditions for whom other drugs have proved ineffective."

Even if the crown prosecutors don't get it, some trial courts do -- or at least they did. Up until last year, medical marijuana patients and providers successfully raised the "necessity" defense, which allows illegal acts to prevent a greater harm. But an appeals court ruling last year held that the "necessity" defense did apply to the use of marijuana to relieve chronic pain.

[Midnight toker]

The Times
August 08, 2006


Cultivating cannabis? It's like growing tomatoes, says judge

By Nicola Woolcock


<blockquote>
<b><i>A JUDGE has refused to impose an antisocial behaviour order on a man cultivating cannabis because it is “no worse than having tomato plants”.

He also told Oxford City Council, who applied for the ASBO, that it was “the sort of thing they do in Russia or China”. </i></b>
</blockquote>

Twelve cannabis plants, worth £3,400, were discovered growing under special hydroponic lights at Phillip Pledge’s council flat. The council sought a possession order for the National Blood Service driver’s home and an ASBO banning him from the housing estate for two years.

Judge Charles Harris, QC, refused both applications, saying that smoking cannabis did not constitute a nuisance. The judge said: “Smoking or possession of a quantity of cannabis, though a criminal offence, does not constitute a nuisance.

“For some reason the Crown Prosecution Service has not charged Mr Pledge. He was arrested and released. If there is evidence against the defendant he should be brought before a criminal court.”

The plants were found on the Blackbird Leys estate in Oxford during a police raid in February. The city council said that Mr Pledge was causing “alarm, harassment and distress” to his neighbours by growing the marijuana.

Simon Strelitz, for the council, said that Mr Pledge had broken his tenancy agreement by storing and growing the drug. He told Oxford County Court: “The city council is not prepared to allow its property to harbour people who wish to commit offences. The fact that he has drugs in such quantity acts as a magnet for other unsavoury characters.”

Mr Pledge, a business partner in Oxford Hydroponics, represented himself in court.

He said that the drugs were for personal use, and added: “I’ve not dealt drugs and it’s never been proven that I dealt drugs. I am a partner in a hydroponics shop, which carries a certain stigma with it. I’ve been trying to get a move away for two years and been trying to wean myself off cannabis.”

Judge Harris said: “If you are Sherlock Holmes and you go back to Baker Street and inject yourself with cocaine, as he did, you cannot be called a nuisance. So quietly smoking cannabis at home, not that it is to be encouraged, I’m not sure at all it constitutes a nuisance. If you are simply growing it, it’s no more offensive to neighbours than tomato plants.”

A spokesman for Oxford City Council said that it would be appealing against the decision.

[palmspringsbum]

US police chief's warning over doomed drugs policy

28/08/2006 - 3:14:06 PM
The Evening Echo

The prohibition against illicit street drugs should be ended as hard-line legislation against drugs is doomed to failure, a US police chief warned today.

Jerry Cameron, a police veteran with 17 years experience, urged the Irish Government not to make the same mistakes the United States has made in its war on drugs.

Mr Cameron said there was ample evidence the hard-line crackdown with severe prison sentences for possession of street drugs such as cannabis and heroin in America had failed to deal with the problem.

“If someone wants to try a drug they are going to try it the law makes no difference,” he said.

“In a free society you just can’t keep people from doing things which are sometimes foolish.”

At a conference in Dublin, Mr Cameron said the mission of the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) was to save lives and lower crime rates by ending prohibition.

“I would urge the Irish as a sovereign national country to get their own experts together, and dismiss this idea there is only one approach and come up with an Irish solution to Irish problems and do not let the US lead you down this path that we have gone down,” he said.

Mr Cameron said prohibition simply never worked and results in criminal activity.

“I certainly think the first step is physicians ought to be able to prescribe anything that they believe will help their patient, the police have got no business practising medicine,” he said.

Mr Cameron said if the profit motive was removed from the criminals by making drugs legal then law enforcement could regain some control in the area.

“The biggest thing is the violence that is associated with black markets when you buy a product from a person and it is defective, with a drug you can’t take him to court and you have to solve it in another way. And in the US we do that with guns,” he said.

“I don’t think Ireland has started to experience the full consequences of the black market but it will.”

Mr Cameron said if he could sit down with a parent and rationally discuss the evidence he could convince them of the futility of prohibiting drugs.

“I certainly don’t want people out using drugs, but the problem is just like in alcohol prohibition you’re gonna’ have the same usage but with all of these unintended consequences caused by criminalising something that you can’t control,” he said.

“If you wanted marijuana tonight and didn’t know where to go who would you ask? The young people, the teenagers. It is out there they have got it. The only thing that is different now is they have to deal with criminals in order to get it,” he said.

“The guy from the market is not down at the school giving out cigarettes and beer as free samples, and trying to recruit the students to sell these products in their school. He has a licence to worry about.”

Rick Lines of the Irish Penal Reform Trust said by any measure the 30-year international war on drugs has failed.

“The use of illegal drugs has never been more prevalent, our prisons have never been fuller and injecting drug-related health concerns such as HIV and Hepatitis C infection have continued to grow across the world,” he said.

Mr Cameron said marijuana was an innocuous drug which had been demonised. “My drug of choice is alcohol but if I had to make a decision,” he said. “It would take a nanosecond to tell you marijuana is the safer drug.”

He added: “Poor eating habits are definitely more dangerous than marijuana.”

Eoin Ryan, a Fianna Fáil MEP and former minister of state, who attended the conference, said: “What politician is going to get up and say you should legalise drugs?

“The problem is if you are a minister who wants to legalise cannabis you are going to get an endless amount of medical evidence that cannabis is a carcinogenic.”

He added: “The state would end up being sued as tobacco firms are being sued.”

“I don’t know how we solve it, I honestly don’t,” he said.

[palmspringsbum]

Drugs: why we should medicalise, not criminalise

Mary Ann Sieghart
December 14, 2006
The Times


If you are a desperate drug addict and you are neither a trust fund babe nor a doctor with a prescription pad, you really have only three ways to pay for your habit: you steal, you deal or you sell your body. For those poor young women who have too many scruples to steal or deal, prostitution is often the only answer. Some 95 per cent of prostitutes, according to a Home Office study, are what they call “problematic drug users”.

And now five prostitutes in Suffolk have been murdered and the rest fear for their lives. One of the victims, Gemma Adams, an intelligent, piano-playing, pony-riding, middle-class girl, had turned to prostitution, like many other such women, after becoming addicted to heroin and crack. This week her parents issued photos of her in happier days, to help people understand that she was a person, not just a prostitute.

Yet even the law degrades prostitutes, valuing their lives at less than that of a middle-class, piano-playing girl. When Dianne Parry’s daughter, Hanane (another heroin addict turned prostitute), was murdered and dismembered in 2003, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority offered Mrs Parry only half the money that a parent of a non-prostitute would receive. It wasn’t the £5,000 that Mrs Parry cared about, but the devaluing of her daughter’s life.

And it is not just the law on compensation that should be changed. It is the law on drugs themselves. Drug addiction is a medical condition; it should not be treated as a criminal offence. The crime that results from drug addiction is a direct result of the drugs’ illegality. The organised criminal gangs, with their violence, corruption and money laundering; the street gangs, with their gun crime, stabbings and intimidation; the muggers, burglars, car thieves and shoplifters, who steal to fund their habit; the dealers who try to create new addicts; and finally, the prostitutes who put their health and lives at risk; all this crime and suffering could be wiped out if the drugs were available, free, on prescription. Some 50 to 80 per cent of prisoners are in jail for crimes related to raising money to buy drugs. Nearly half of women prisoners are there specifically for drug offences and nearly three-quarters have had a drug problem. The cost to the criminal justice system is huge. The cost to the individuals, their families and wider society is greater still.

In European cities, where heroin is available on prescription, property crimes by drug-users have dropped by as much as a half. And think of the effect that widespread prescribing would have on turf wars, gang violence, gun crime, street dealing and prostitution. An excellent report from the Transform drug policy foundation* also points out: “The largest single profit opportunity for organised crime would evaporate, and with it the largest single source of police corruption.”

Transform estimates that the prison population would fall by between a third and a half, ending overcrowding and the need to build more jails. Billions of pounds spent enforcing prohibition and coping with its consequences would be saved. Hundreds of thousands could be treated as patients rather than criminals. The number of drug-related deaths would fall dramatically. And desperate young women could be rescued from pimps, potential rapists and murderers.

At the same time, unstable countries such as Afghanistan and Colombia, which have become almost ungovernable thanks to the distorting and corrupting effects of the drugs trade, could sell their products legally to Western governments for medical use.

Of course we should try to get drug addicts off their drugs. It is good that waiting times are now shorter for rehabilitation. But treatment doesn’t work unless users really, really want to give up. And even then, they often relapse because the cravings are so strong. So it is not surprising that enforced treatment and rehabilitation is so unsuccessful. A National Audit Office report on the Government’s Drug Treatment and Testing Order, a court-administered mandatory programme for addicts, found that 80 per cent of offenders were reconvicted within two years.

It is much more sensible to prescribe a maintenance dose for addicts, which they must take under supervision so they cannot sell it on, until they are ready to try to give up. That way, they can attempt to lead a normal life, to refrain from crime, to stay off the streets, even to hold down a job, until they can wean themselves off the drugs.

This isn’t just the whim of a crazy columnist. The former head of Interpol, Raymond Kendall, has called for drugs to be “medicalised” instead of criminalised. He spent his life trying to control the supply of drugs, only to see how pointless the effort was. Drugs are now available on virtually every street corner, ready to destroy lives.

So let’s save lives instead. Let’s take the profits out of the pockets of criminal gangs and dealers. Let’s make our streets safer. And let’s give these poor young girls the opportunity of a better life, with dignity, security and scant chance of ending up murdered and dumped in a ditch.


*After the War on Drugs: Options for Control www.tdpf.org.uk

[palmspringsbum]

'Is it a crime to want to be well?'


<span class=postbold>For six years, Mark and Lezley Gibson supplied cannabis to sufferers of multiple sclerosis. The police knew what they were doing - but turned a blind eye. Now, however, the 'Canna-Biz Two' have been convicted of dealing. They talk to Patrick Barkham </span>

Tuesday December 19, 2006
The Guardian


Behind the purple door on the cobbled streets of Alston, Cumbria, the cooking pot was seldom off the boil. In the ordinary kitchen tucked high in the North Pennines, thick brown liquid was poured into moulds imported from Belgian chocolatiers. Luxurious bars of high-cocoa-fat chocolate were wrapped and labelled and placed in jiffy bags, then posted to all corners of the country.

It would have been an uncomplicated and charming cottage industry, but for one special ingredient: each 150g bar contained up to 3.5g of cannabis. For six years, its presence in the chocolate helped ease pain for more than 1,600 people with multiple sclerosis, almost 2% of all British sufferers. It also caused the chocolate's distributors, Mark and Lezley Gibson, to fall victim to village gossip, police raids and legal action that has left them branded as drug dealers.

On Friday, a jury found the Gibsons, and an associate, Marcus Davies, guilty of two counts of conspiracy to supply cannabis between 2004 and 2005. There were tears and gasps of shock in the public gallery at Carlisle crown court when the decision was delivered. For Lezley, who suffers from MS, the decision at least ended the mental and physical agony of a prosecution that has dragged on for nearly two years. But the reverberations of the decision reach far beyond the Gibsons' kitchen in Alston. The verdict is discomforting for those who assumed this country had, in effect, decriminalised cannabis. And it is painful for those MS sufferers who have suddenly found their supply of cannabis chocolate cut off.

The Gibsons' journey to Carlisle crown court began back in the mid-80s. Lezley was a trainee hairdresser, good enough to beat the likes of Andrew Collinge and Nicky Clarke in apprenticeship competitions. While the men went on to become celebrity coiffeurs, however, the worsening pins and needles in Lezley's legs took her to hospital in Carlisle, where she was diagnosed with MS. Treated for 10 weeks, she had two agonising lumbar punctures and was given steroids, which caused her to grow a beard and double her weight to more than 14 stone. The final piece of "medical" advice before she was discharged was, she says, to forgo butter and eat margarine instead. "I was called in-valid," she recalls, emphasising the word. "I was disabled. I was written off, no longer any use to anyone. When I was diagnosed, they said I would be incontinent and in a wheelchair within five years."

Twenty-two years on, Lezley is a slight, attractive woman with a warm smile, and no wheelchair. For three years after her diagnosis, however, she suffered paralysis of her right and left sides and periodically lost the power of speech and sight in her right eye. "This was the normal downward spiral of MS. Then I met Mark and started using cannabis," she says. Like many young men, Mark was a recreational user. Lezley noticed that when she smoked it with him, she felt better.

"I read Charles Kingsley's The Water Babies when I was young and I've always been Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby," she says. "Once I found out that cannabis did this to me, I couldn't keep it quiet. I wanted to help other people." The former MP Robert Kilroy-Silk inadvertently assisted Lezley when she appeared on his show to talk about MS in the mid-90s. There she met other MS sufferers and was inspired to found a support group, Therapeutic Help from Cannabis (THC). Fortified by a growing body of scientific evidence about the medicinal effects of cannabis on MS, Mark got involved and travelled to universities to talk at conferences about the drug.

It was when the Gibsons began talking publicly about cannabis that the police took an interest. The couple were first raided in 1989: Mark spent a week on remand in Durham prison. They were busted again in 1995 and again in 1999. In 2000, Lezley was acquitted of possession on the grounds of medical "necessity".

A friend and fellow MS sufferer, Biz Ivol, began producing "Cannachoc" for a neighbour with MS. She, too, was arrested and prosecuted. When her illness was exacerbated by legal action, the Gibsons offered to take over the production of the chocolate in 2000. When Ivol died in 2004, they named it "Canna-Biz", in her honour. Qualified in food hygiene, Mark began making the chocolate for about half a dozen MS sufferers in the kitchen above his gift shop in Alston, where he sells new age crystals and ethnic ornaments.

"It felt good to be of some use, to help society. It was terrible to be told you're no use at 20," says Lezley. As word spread, people wrote letters addressed to "The lady with MS, Alston" or turned up at their door in wheelchairs. Those who found cannabis helped reduce muscle spasm and increased bladder control were relieved to find an alternative to giving £150 a week to a drug dealer. Soon the couple were posting bars to more than 100 people a week.

As long as he didn't sell it, and only gave it to MS sufferers, Mark believed he had a defence in law. If prosecuted, he thought he could deploy the defence of "necessity", which allowed for an illegal act to avert greater harm (or, in this case, pain). A number of people, including founders of medical marijuana cooperatives and even a GP, Dr Anne Biezanek, who supplied her sick daughter, have been acquitted of possession and supply using this medical "necessity" argument.

Gibson was meticulous about how he produced and supplied Canna-Biz. He obtained the cannabis for free from altruistic growers and bought the chocolate (ideally, organic Green & Black's; otherwise Tesco's or Morrisons' own brands). Lezley helped with the administration and they instructed users to take no more than three squares from the 24-square bar each day to ensure no psychoactive effects. They never distributed it through their shop. Crucially, they never sold it, instead suggesting a donation of between £1.50 and £5 to cover their costs (some MS patients would give more; many chose never to pay anything). And they insisted that any "patient" must send them a doctor's letter, on headed notepaper, confirming they had MS. Lezley says the notes showed that almost all their patients were over 40: "It's not people looking for a cheap thrill; it's middle-aged people who are ill."

Curtains began to twitch as Mark strolled across the street to Alston post office every day with jiffy bags of cannabis chocolate. Small-town gossips reckoned the 4x4-driving couple must be raking it in. Mark was summoned to meet a senior Cumbria police officer in 2002. He was warned: open a cannabis cafe and you'll be shut down. But police advice about their chocolate operation was more ambiguous. Mark told the court it was suggested he should not be "quite so blatant" about it. "He didn't tell me to stop," says Gibson. "To this very day nobody has told us to stop."

Nevertheless, heeding police warnings, the couple reduced their media profile and began using a regional post office instead of their local one. Davies, an associate from Cambridgeshire, built a website for their new not-for-profit scheme, Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for Multiple Sclerosis (THC4MS). He also provided them with a PO box address in Huntingdon; it meant the couple's home address was no longer publicised. When their local bank refused to let them open an account for THC4MS, Davies, who is registered disabled and grew his own cannabis to treat his severe diabetes and epilepsy, agreed to cash donor cheques for the Gibsons.

Internal police documents read out in court showed that Cumbria police decided it would be "oppressive and vindictive" to mount a surveillance operation on the couple after Lezley was acquitted in 2000. Early one morning in February last year, however, the police knocked on the Gibsons' purple door. Bars of Canna-Biz had spilled out of a jiffy bag at the Post Office and the police were called. Along with Davies, they were charged with conspiracy to supply cannabis.

Legal arguments dragged on for nearly two years - destroying Gibson's gift shop business - before their case finally opened in court two weeks ago. Jeremy Grout-Smith, for the prosecution, argued that while the couple were not conventional drug dealers, there was no defence in law. "To supply cannabis, even if you believe it is doing good, is not a defence," he said. Police found details of three bank accounts at Davies' home into which more than £39,000 worth of cheques had been paid between March 2003 and March 2005. "So this seems to be distribution on quite a large scale and, to some extent at least, the defendants may have benefited financially - although the Crown does not claim this was their main motivation," he said.

The Gibsons and Davies claimed that most of the sum was the income from other members of Davies' family. Even if some was money from donations, they said it was all ploughed back into the not-for-profit Canna-Biz operation. In six years they have supplied more than 33,000 bars and calculate they have given away cannabis with a street value of £500,000. The pair are not visibly wealthy. "We're not very good 'drug dealers', are we?" says Lezley. "If I'd sold it, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be in Spain with the rest of 'em."

As the arguments were trotted out during nine days in court, little indignities struck home. On one morning proceedings were delayed because the prosecution barrister had a medical complaint. Lezley, who struggled to walk into court and found it painful to sit down for more than 10 minutes, was on time every day. She believes her previous court battle advanced her MS by five years. "At the moment I don't know if I'm able to move when I wake up," she said two days before the verdict. "I'm not sleeping, I'm constantly in pain across my shoulders. I'm not taking as much cannabis as I should because I'm stuck in court."

The couple struggled to retain their composure when faced with legal professionals who required correcting on several basic facts about medicinal cannabis and the law. When Grout-Smith asserted that no one had been acquitted of supplying cannabis on grounds of medical necessity, he was put right by Mark. The judge struggled to understand how a commercial medical cannabis treatment for MS users in Britain, called Sativex, could be unlicensed yet still be legal in the UK. Mark, again, was on hand to explain: in a government fudge, it was denied a licence in Britain but for the past 12 months has been made available on a "named patient" prescription basis. A doctor must get a licence from the Home Office to prescribe it to individuals. A survey by Disability Now found few patients have been able to get it because the process is so bureaucratic and expensive. Lezley is now licensed to carry a Sativex spray but finds smoking cannabis better. The spray is "very, very strong" and, she says, more likely to incapacitate her than smoking.

The Gibsons are not the sort of campaigners who crave courtroom publicity. But their case made public some interesting facts. The couple kept 1,036 letters from doctors confirming patients had MS. Of those, 65 made specific reference to cannabis chocolate, showing that some doctors had full knowledge of what they were writing the letter for. One MS sufferer, Helen Wallace, gave evidence from her wheelchair in court that she had told her doctor precisely why she needed the note. In this way, many of the letters from the medical profession were de facto prescriptions.

Despite such support, the political climate has shifted. The government is determined not to be seen as "soft" on the drug since it was downgraded from class B to C. (Paradoxically, downgrading cannabis has damaged the Gibsons because recreational users who once donated money or campaigned for their medical cause have dropped away, content that they can smoke a spliff in peace.) As well as a growing body of research showing its medicinal applications, there is, equally, more scientific evidence linking cannabis to mental illnesses such as psychosis and schizophrenia. The studies agree on one thing: cannabis affects different people in different ways.

Three months after the Gibsons were arrested, legal opinion also turned against them. While several cannabis suppliers successfully evoked the defence of medical "necessity", the court of appeal ruled in May 2005 that necessity could not be a defence in six test cases of supplying cannabis. Removing this common-law defence has, in effect, recriminalised the medicinal use of cannabis. Lawrence Wood, chief executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Resource Centre charity, says the law is "an ass" and society is hypocritical to allow possession for personal use without explaining where it can be obtained safely. "If the government had licensed Sativex, and made it easily available, then these people would not have needed to supply it in this way," he says.

Since the verdict, the couple have received emails from recipients of their chocolate. "I shall miss it very much," says one woman with MS. "I have tried gradually using less each day but was in so much pain I started back on a full dose. Don't know what I shall do when this bar has finished."

Lezley is defiant. "The prosecutor told me what I did was wrong but the law is wrong. It's evil and cruel and totally unfair. As a person who is ill, why am I in court? It can't be a crime to want to be well. If it was paint stripper, I'd take it. It's just unfortunate it's illegal. I'm sorry that cannabis makes me well and I'm sorry I'm going to keep taking it, because I don't want to be in a wheelchair and I don't want to be incontinent."

The maximum penalty for the unauthorised supply of cannabis is 14 years in jail but the pair, who will be sentenced in January, have been told they will not face a prison term. They know, however, they must pour away the last Canna-Biz and pack up their pans. They have no defence in law; MS sufferers will no longer receive cannabis chocolate pain relief through the post. "I want the judge to send a letter to all those people saying why they will no longer receive our medication," says Lezley. "I can't do that".

[palmspringsbum]

Cameron calls for legalisation of 'medical marijuana'

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
The Independent
Published: 22 January 2007

David Cameron has supported calls for cannabis to be legalised for medical use provided that clear health benefits can be shown.

The Tory leader, who has refused to answer media questions about whether he used drugs before entering politics, ruled out a wider legalisation of cannabis for recreational use.

Answering questions on his "webcameron" website, he said: "If it can be proved that there are real benefits, medicinal benefits and scientific evidence for it, I would be relaxed about that. My decision would be to licence it if it could be proved to have benefits."

The pledge will be welcomed by campaigners who claim that cannabis can ease the symptoms of illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, but it may worry Tory traditionalists.

Mo Mowlam, the former cabinet minister who died in 2005, fought for cannabis to be made legal for medical use. Although the Home Office set up investigations into the drug's possible benefits, the impetus appears to have stalled.

Mr Cameron will launch a new Tory health policy today vowing to sweep away many of the targets Labour has imposed on the NHS.

The Tories will call for all GPs to take control of budgets, currently held by primary care trusts, and be rewarded for improving outcomes. GP fundholding was used by the Tory government before 1997, but it was scrapped by Labour.

The Tories say outcomes matter more than targets and that Labour's regime distorts priorities. Maximum waiting times set by the Government are becoming minimum waits, they argue.

[palmspringsbum]

Who Patented The Paracetamol Tree?


PR-USA.net
December 15, 2007


Cannabis grower Roderick Cotton must be feeling mightily aggrieved as he sits in prison, serving a 1 year sentence for growing cannabis for medical use. Especially so, when you realize the judge wasn't so much concerned with what Mr Cotton had done, but more with what he may do in the future? Judge Marten Coates told Cotton: "I know you have a personal crusade, but you waste so much public time and money achieving nothing."

"I am not without sympathy for your point of view."

"Indeed I was tempted not to send you to prison, but you have ruined that."

This, after Cotton told Warwick Crown Court that he would not stop his campaign to help people with medical conditions, which made it difficult or impossible for them to grow their own medical marijuana.

"I have asked if he will give an undertaking never to commit this kind of offence again and he cannot give that undertaking." "Therefore I cannot pass a non-custodial sentence."

In fairness to Judge Coates we have to remember that as the law stands currently, what Mr Cotton did was illegal.

But on digging a little deeper into the evidence the police used to convict Mr Cotton, it begs the question "Is this what our already 'brim-full' prison service is for?"

During the trial, the police told Warwick Crown Court that Mr Cotton had been caught growing 250 plants. Which is a lot of plants by any standards and certainly 'more than' more than enough for one person.

Yet the only suggestion of "supply" the police alluded to throughout the entire trial, was to a group of medical cannabis patients who came together through a web based medical marijuana organisation called "Bud Buddies".

In a nutshell, Bud Buddies brings together cannabis growers who grow for their own consumption alone, and medical patients who, for whatever reason, are unable to grow their own cannabis.

Any 'surplus' a grower has, can be found a good home with a medical patient, via a clandestine, high security and much protected network of contacts.

According to the Bud Buddies website, "Bud Buddies was created to raise the profile for the argument of medicinal cannabis use and subsequent benefits of a less harmfull source of pain relief over failed allopathic regimes."

What that means in laymans terms?

<span class=postbold>The Paracetamol Tree?</span>

Not all "clinical" medicines 'agree' with the patients, and some come with a host of side effects which can create a condition worse than that which the drugs were prescribed for in the first place.

For instance the steroidal treatments prescribed for the condition 'rheumatoid arthritis' bring with it a high incidence of osteoporosis in later life, as the steroids cause bone porosity as high as 85% in some patients.

But some rheumatoid arthritis sufferers have found using cannabis instead, controls the effects of the disease, but without the side effects, and doctors are clearly agreeing as you can't use the Bud Buddies service without a note from your doctor, explaining what your condition is.

And its not just RA sufferers who use cannabis.

In the US, in Holland and in Germany, cannabis is prescribed for Aids/HIV sufferers, MS patients, those suffering from Glaucoma, as well as patients suffering the side effects of 'toxic' treatments such as chemotherapy.

The active component in cannabis (TetraHydraCannabinol or THC), suppresses the nausea which comes as a result of the chemotherapy treatment, allowing the patient a far better quality of life as well as a greater chance of survival, by assisting with (amongst other things) a healthy immune system.

And on the face of it, it becomes easy to see why cannabis/marijuana - call it what you will, remains illegal.

As literally tens of thousands of patients wait for the implementation of a law which must surely change soon, and which allows patients to be able to grow and administer their own pain relief.

But, and its a big but, in doing so, they will be costing the pharmaceutical industry billions in lost drug revenues and make no mistake, thats what this unbelievably fantastic war on cannabis is all about.

Profit and loss.

<span class=postbold>In Europe</span>

Over In Holland this week, Dutch police have demanded, (demanded, no less) the right to be able to smoke cannabis when off-duty, which under current regulations, is actually allowed.

But as of January 1st 2008, they must abstain, even though the rest of the population is allowed to use cannabis through a "tolerance" agreement.

Last we heard here on the Canna Zine, the Dutch police unions were getting involved to defend the rights of the off-duty police officer so this case isn't over by a stretch and with not a schizophrenia headline, or a risk of psychosis mentioned once in the news report.

<span class=postbold>In America</span>

Meanwhile in the US, a court judge has returned cannabis plants and growing equipment to a desert storm veteran who uses cannabis under the protection of a doctors note, in the treatment of PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Kevin Dickes returned from the gulf on a military discharge.

As a result of his injury's his doctor recommended marijuana to help him with the pain he has suffered daily since a grenade landed next to him in Kuwait when he served there as a Marine in 1991. He has no feeling below his right calf and suffers from chronic vascular disease and PTSD.

On the same subject an Oregon physician and toxicologist, (Dr Philip Leveque) said, "Everybody in a war zone has neurosis. It’s how we cope. Battle is super stressful and unless you have been in that situation yourself, you cannot even imagine how stressful it would be."

"A recent example is the serial killer at Virginia Tech who killed 32 students."

"The whole student body and faculty had a neurosis. Many will suffer from PTSD, and many will use marijuana to treat it."

<span class=postbold>United Kingdom</span>

In the meantime and back in the UK, with only 9 days until Christmas, Roderick Cotton sits in prison for growing the plant doctors are recommending, and prescribing, as a medical treatment all over the world.

As a result of this the Home Office would make a lot of friends at a time it seems it could do with some, if it were to free Roderick Cotton, in time for him to spend Christmas with his family.

It is the season of goodwill, after all, and Mr Cottons crime had no victim!

<hr class=postrule>
<center><small>PR Canna Zine is the first-in-the-world news agency dedicated entirely to cannabis and hemp issues. If you're fed up of shoddy cannabis or hemp news, and you know you can do better, sign up, post your news, and we'll index your writing alongside the daily Canna Zine press output..PR.Canna Zine </small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

medical cannabis case "a missed opportunity"

http://cannazine.co.uk: The editor of a news website based in South Wales has claimed the jailing of medical cannabis grower Roderick Cotton, was a "missed opportunity" for opening communications regarding the intergration of medical cannabis into UK society.

According to Ian Malley, news editor at The Canna Zine , "http://cannazine.co.uk", the Roderick Cotton case was the natural beginning. An ideal opening for communications regarding the decriminalisation of cannabis for medical use.

"Its a simple solution to a problem which the entire world faces and its easily solveable but for one or two politicians with the balls to stand up and tell their paymasters exactly what constituents all over the country, really want, as opposed to what a select few in "middle-england" have decided.

"If you remove medical cannabis users from the illicit world market-place, you could free up a third of the worlds enforcement agencies, which may help tackle the "class A" drug epidemic we are witnessing in Europe at the moment."

"In Ireland, cocaine use is higher than its ever been before, a statistic which was rubber-stamped recently when the worlds press reported the unrelated death's of three young adults from the Republic, all within days of each other, and all as a result of a bad batch of cocaine."

"In South Wales, children as young as 13 years are being treated for heroin addiction, and Italy was recently named as the country which achieved the impossible and received more shipments of cocaine from Columbia, than the United States received, and that takes some doing."

In the meantime the Dutch medical marijuana program continues to go from strength to strength after recently receiving a 5 year extension which was agreed by the Dutch government toward the end of 2007. In Germany the first medical marijuana patients have already received their licences to use marijuana, as a treatment for the chronic and debilitating pain caused by a variety of treatments which the German medical authorities agree, will react well to treatment with pure, unadulterated cannabis.

And according to editor Malley, this is the kicker;

"If the German and Dutch government's can agree that cannabis can and does help improve the lives of a large number of medical patients, who have in common the fact they all suffer from debilatating and painfull diseases including Aids/HIV, Cancer, MS, Glaucoma to name only 5, what on earth is holding up the UK government?"

"What gives the UK government the right to forbid a substance a neighbouring government openly allows the use of, and on what grounds?"

"Not such a European "Union" when you look at it like that?"

"Over the last twelve months the Canna Zine has reported on numerous recommendations from Doctors in the US as well as further afield, that cannabis is helping their patients. Life is improving, at least to a degree, and isn't that what medical drugs are meant to do? Improve the patients life?.

"The beauty of consuming cannabis in dealing with pain is its low toxicity. No one is going to "overdose" on cannabis. Also you can take "just enough" to do the job and using the new generation of cannabis vaporizer's such as the Volcano, means using cannabis does not have to mean harming health anymore."

"In the meantime, the government procrastinates on cannabis whilst giving off the smell of an organisation who simply don't know how to deal with the issue in hand. So rather than attempt to make a difference to the lives of thousands of sufferers, they simply do nothing!"

"Apart from imprison people like Roderick Cotton, whose only crime was the desire to help sick people, which is a crime without a victim from where I'm sitting."


<small>Set up in February 2007, the Canna Zine is the first-in-the-world news agency dedicated to the global issues surrounding cannabis and hemp. To post your free cannabis or hemp press release, sign up for a free account on http://pr.cannazine.co.uk , post your release, and the Canna Zine will do the rest.</small>

http://cannazine.co.uk - Drop by, say hi!!

[palmspringsbum]

'MORE MISTAKES BY PATHOLOGIST'

The Leicester Mercury

<table class=posttable align=right width=161><tr><td class=postcell><img src=bin/al-alousi_louay.jpg class=postimg alt="Dr. Louay Al-Alousi"></td></tr></table>BY PAUL CONROY
10:30 - 05 January 2008


A consultant pathologist who admitted professional misconduct over two bungled post-mortem examinations is facing new allegations.

Dr Louay Al-Alousi, of the University of Leicester, admitted making serious mistakes in the cases of two teenagers, saying their deaths were due to cannabis use when that was not the case.

He now faces allegations of mistakes in another seven examinations - one of which involved a murder victim - including one of a "grossly inadequate post-mortem examination" and errors while supervising a trainee pathologist.

Dr Al-Alousi denies all the new allegations.

The Home Office pathologist had restrictions imposed on his ability to practice in January last year after he admitted professional misconduct before the General Medical Council (GMC) over the cannabis cases.

He appeared at a review hearing of those restrictions yesterday.

The panel ruled they should remain.

It was also revealed at the hearing that since July, Dr Al-Alousi has been restricted to research and teaching work at the university.

The panel was told he agreed to a proposal to limit his work made by university vice-chancellor Prof Bob Burgess.

The new allegations are being investigated by the university and National Policing Improvement Agency.

Dr Al-Alousi has worked on cases including that of Earl Shilton woman Joanne Butler, who was murdered by a man and his 13-year-old son.

Last year's GMC hearing was sparked by the refusal of Paul and Joanne Burgess, of Leicester Forest East, to accept Dr Al-Alousi's finding in relation to their son, James.

The couple enlisted their own pathologist, while a coroner had a third expert examine James. Both agreed his death was due to an unsuspected heart condition.

The same conclusion was reached for the other teenager.

Since restrictions were imposed, Dr Al-Alousi's supervisor, Prof Guy Rutty, has made fresh complaints against him relating to six autopsies, including "incorrect conclusions as to the cause of death". The other complaint followed work at the University of Dundee.

Hugh Lloyd, defending, said Dr Al-Alousi had made a "substantial" complaint against Prof Rutty.

He did not submit that Dr Al-Alousi's fitness to practice was no longer impaired.

Prof Kevin Dalton, chairman of the GMC panel, said: "The panel considers the allegations against you relating to issues of your clinical competence are serious (and) has found your fitness to practice is impaired."

The panel said it was unlikely he would be considered fit to practice without restrictions while the new allegations were investigated.

It ruled the restrictions should remain for two years. Dr Al-Alousi has 28 days to appeal.

[palmspringsbum]

From The Sunday Times
January 6, 2008


Call me the mad mullah of the police but drugs should be legal

<span class=postbigbold>The chief constable who last week said ecstasy is safer than aspirin peddles his drug theory to our correspondent</span>

Stuart Wavell

Few senior cops can boast such an electrifying record as Richard Brunstrom. He recently stunned himself with a Taser gun to prove the police device was not dangerous. Then he broke into his own headquarters at night to highlight a lack of security. And last week Brunstrom’s sanity was questioned after he proclaimed that the illegal drug ecstasy was “a remarkably safe substance” – safer than aspirin.

Some maintain that a congenital predilection for self-publicity has propelled North Wales’s chief constable on his relentless campaign to install ever more speed cameras, for which he earned the sobriquet “the mad mullah of the traffic Taliban”. Now he has the tabloids frothing at the mouth over his zeal to legalise all drugs.

How does it feel, I ask, to be Tasered with 50,000 volts? “Very uncomfortable,” Brunstrom admits. He did it for “ethical reasons” to demonstrate that the police’s reassurances were true. So presumably he’s taken ecstasy for the same reason? “Never. I don’t take illegal substances. I’ve never touched cannabis in my life. I don’t smoke. I drink a little bit of alcohol but not to excess.” He says that more people die from taking aspirin than ecstasy.

“Why are heroin and cocaine illegal and not lighter fluid? It is demonstrable that tobacco and alcohol are more addictive and more dangerous than cannabis, yet they are not illegal. The question is not whether I am mad, but why these things are illegal.”

Brunstrom refers to 20 substances listed in a “hierarchy of harm” printed in The Lancet last year. The league table is headed by heroin, closely followed by cocaine, with alcohol in fifth place, tobacco ninth, cannabis 11th and ecstasy 18th. If ecstasy, as he stated on Radio 4’s Today programme last week, was “far safer than aspirin” how does he respond to the parents whose children have died after taking a pill?

The policeman has a broad answer: “There has not been a single case of someone dying as a result of being poisoned by ecstasy.

“The most famous case is that of Leah Betts, a young girl who actually died of water poisoning in 1995. Because ecstasy causes you to be thirsty, she drank too much water. Her brain stem was crushed and her heart stopped. My advice to everybody is don’t take ecstasy in the first place. But why should it be a criminal offence? It may be stupid, but why should you be arrested and prosecuted?”

His latest campaign has prompted the tabloids to replay a peal of clangers by the 52-year-old Londoner. Notable was his decision to display photographs of a headless motorcyclist to a public conference without asking the family’s permission. There have been calls for his resignation, including a petition last year on the Downing Street website that attracted 3,000 signatures. Why has he invited such vilification? “Because it matters. I think I have a public duty to speak out.”

Even if it costs him his job? “I have the backing of my police authority. There are consequences to being notorious and vilified, of course. But I’m far from alone in this.”

He believes it would be ludicrous to ban alcohol and cigarettes and wants them included in a new substance misuse act – but he admits “nobody knows” how they might be regulated. He also advocates the legalisation of class A, B and C drugs, which would be dispensed by the state and thus deprive criminals of a multi-billion-pound market. He doesn’t want drug-takers needlessly criminalised.

Invoking numerous sources, he claims the war on drugs is unwinnable. “It is not possible to run a democratic country and stop drugs getting in,” he insists. “We reckon, on the best evidence we’ve got, that we stop between 10 and 12% at best of the drugs imported into the UK.”

His assertions on heroin would give most antidrugs campaigners cold turkey. Despite heading his “hierarchy of harm”, he says it is “not particularly dangerous”, although highly addictive. “If taken sensibly, heroin has no known adverse medical effects.”

Brunstrom contends that prescribing heroin to addicts has been proved to reduce their criminal activities: “Because most of their criminal behaviour is driven by the need to gain cash and buy more drugs.”

He rates cannabis as “demonstrably less dangerous and addictive than tobacco”, but concedes that crack cocaine makes people “extremely violent”.

Unable to cite any precedents for the legalisation of drugs beyond the recent case of Portugal, he says the experts know what is likely to work. Of course, a similar confidence inspired legislation on 24-hour drinking.

The difficulty is not that Brunstrom doesn’t have a case, but that he undermines it with obtuse reasoning: comparing the relative safety of ecstasy and aspirin has not left people angry at the absurdity of policy, just thoroughly confused.

Is Brunstrom right? Post your views on drugs on the feedback form below

[palmspringsbum]

Gordon Brown's tough stance on cannabis

The Telegraph
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 09/01/2008


Cannabis is expected to be reclassified as a class B drug as part of Gordon Brown's drive to show Labour's softer line on some drug use is over, it was reported.

This will mean people found in possession of the drug could face a five-year jail term and an unlimited fine.

The Prime Minister signalled in July his intention to reverse the former home secretary David Blunkett's decision to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug in 2001 - a decision that came into force three years later.

He ordered a review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and let it be known he wanted a toughening of the drugs laws.

That move by Mr Blunkett was condemned by many and was seen as tacit approval of some "soft" drug use. And medical studies have continued to link cannabis with mental health problems, a key reason for reclassification.

Whitehall sources have confirmed even if the advisory council's study does not give him full support, he is likely to instruct Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to override the recommendation and go ahead with reclassification to class B.

Miss Smith is not due to receive the report until March.

Mr Brown's surprise announcement of a review was one of several attempts to reverse parts of the agenda pursued by Tony Blair.

He also scrapped plans for a controversial super-casino - at a stroke stopping dead planned resort casinos in Britain.

The advisory council ruled out a previous attempt to reclassify cannabis in 2006 ordered by then home secretary Charles Clarke.

But Miss Smith has ensured this time the review body takes into account public attitudes to cannabis. And whereas Mr Clarke was happy to act on the advice of the council, Miss Smith is expected to frown on any findings that do not back up renewed concerns about the seriousness of cannabis abuse.

In her letter to Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the council, requesting a further review of evidence, Miss Smith said: "Though statistics show cannabis use has fallen significantly, there is real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use, in particular the use of stronger forms of the drug, commonly known as skunk.

"This is in addition to the longitudinal studies undertaken in New Zealand and the Netherlands that link cannabis use to mental health problems."

Mr Brown said in July: "It is the message you send out. Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is that we don't want to send out a message, just like with alcohol, to teenagers that we accept these things."

Last night a Home Office spokesman said: "This is pure speculation.

"We are awaiting the outcome of the review by the advisory council, which hasn't been completed yet."

The Home Secretary is also likely to reject any suggestions that there should be different levels of cannabis offence depending on the strength of the substance.

<hr class=postrule>
<center><small>Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright </small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Number of people treated for cannabis use soars by 50 per cent since the drug was downgraded

By NICK MCDERMOTT
The Daily Mail
Last updated at 09:34am on 11th January 2008


The number of adults being treated for cannabis use has risen by 50 per cent since Labour downgraded the drug to Class C.

The Government's decision to reclassify the drug has seen the number of adults seeking medical help for its effects rise to more than 16,500 in the past year.

Cannabis misuse also accounts for 75 per cent of under-18s who require treatment for drug use, with 9,200 children needing medical aid for its use.

A total of 25,944 people sought cannabis treatment at hospitals and clinics last year - almost 500 adults and children a week.

Drug campaigners said the latest figures, revealed in a parliamentary question, proved the Government's "softly, softly" approach to cannabis was sending out the wrong signals.

Since Labour downgraded the drug from Class B to Class C in 2004, users no longer even face automatic arrest.

Instead, police officers can simply give out a formal warning for cannabis possession on the street.

Around 66,000 such warnings were issued in 2006.

If the drug is reclassifed Class B, the formal warning system would be scrapped and users would face arrest and the humiliation of being taken to a police station.

Campaigners hope this would be enough to deter people from trying the drug in the first place, and send out a strong message of the harm it can do.

The latest health authority figures show that 16,685 adults sought treatment for cannabis use in 2006-7, compared with just 11,057 two years earlier, a 50 per cent rise.

In August, health experts said a single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent.

A Government-commissioned report also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reported.

Last November, official figures showed that Labour's policy on cannabis had led to a 14 per cent rise in drug-related crime.

The main reason for the increase was a surge in possession of cannabis.

Campaigners said it was clear more and more youngsters were getting into trouble by using the drug, which it was downgraded four years ago.

Government figures recorded 55,000 drug offences from April to June 2007 - up from 48,300 in the previous year.

The Magistrates' Association also reported last year that the Government's decision to downgrade the criminal status of cannabis in 2004 has produced a boom in youth crime, notably among 12 and 13-year-olds.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "These numbers in treatment reflect the massive improvements that have been made over the past few years in engaging more people in effective drug treatment.

"In terms of cannabis, we have seen both through the Department of Health's School Survey and the Home Office's British Crime Survey a reduction in cannabis use across all age groups."

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis clinic to treat 12-year-olds


The Telegraph
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 2:47am GMT 13/01/2008


Children as young as 12 are to be offered treatment for cannabis-related mental health problems at a leading clinic.

The Priory Hospital, in Roehampton, south-west London, has set up a new clinic to treat young people suffering from the effects of drug and alcohol use.

The NHS will pay to treat 12- to 18-year-olds suffering from psychological problems after smoking cannabis.

advertisementFigures disclosed by The Daily Telegraph yesterday show that 500 people are being treated by the NHS every week for mental health problems related to cannabis.

Since the Government downgraded it from a Class B to a Class C drug, the number of adults being treated in hospitals and clinics in England for its effects has risen to more than 16,500 a year.

Over the same period, the number of children needing medical attention after smoking the drug has risen to more than 9,200.

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis Chronicles - The Reasons Behind Gordon Browns Marijuana Madness


PR.CannaZine.co.uk
January 12, 2008

<span class=postbold>The governments constant referrals to the "social problems" caused by cannabis have been put firmly into perspective for what they are this week, as new figures released by the Department of Health have shown what can only be described as a "catastrophic" rise in the numbers of young people being treated for alcohol abuse, or dying as a result of it!</span>


People are literally drinking themselves to death as a result of this 24 hour availability of alcohol.

A drug which suffers far more widescale abuse than cannabis ever has, a drug which brings with it far more social implications than cannabis does, as well as being a drug which kills far too many UK citizens every single year and without fail.

These are the facts, no matter how the government attempts to spin them and no matter how the Labour-supporting press reads otherwise.

But with increasing pressure from the big spending 'alcohol lobby', who feed literally millions of pounds per year into the Exchequor, the government seem ill-prepared to do anything at all about it.
Click the image to visit and join us at the Legalise Cannabis Alliance - fighting for YOUR rights!

Alcohol is a cash-cow for the government, which essentially encourages people to drink as much as they possibly can, fuelling the running battles we must suffer in our towns and city's every single night.

<span class=postbigbold>2007</span>

One of Prime Minister Browns first speech's when he took control of the government back in the summer of 07, referred to the possible social issues caused by the change in law which allowed pubs and clubs to stay open for 24 hour drinking.

At this stage its worth noting his "Personal approval rating" - a measure of UK citizens who think he is doing a good job versus those who think otherwise, was at +48%, with Conservative leader David Cameron showing at +20%.

Gordon Brown said he would take another look at the effects the new licencing laws were having on society in the UK, and act accordingly.

But towards the end of 2007, Mr Brown took a hasty U-turn on the issue, saying he was happy the 24 hour drinking laws should remain, "with just a "tweak" needed here and there." I'll say it is, Mr Brown!

<span class=postbigbold>No Confidence</span>

This, allied to the "lost driver details" scandal, the Police pay dispute, NHS cutbacks which saw hospital ward cleaners in South Wales forced to serve patients meals, which became a pre-cursor to an MRSA and Clostridium Difficile epidemic , as well as the Labour Party donations scandal which Peter Hain is about to be hanged over and the prison officers dispute, has seen Gordon Browns personal approval rating plummet, to -26%, which is a massive vote of "No Confidence" from the British public.

As Prime Minister of the country its fair to assume Mr Brown had access to the Department of Health figures regarding alcohol long before they were released for the consumption of the general public.

<span class=postbigbold>Spin-Monger</span>

Which may go someway to explaining the massive spin campaign the government has undertaken on the reclassification of cannabis?

A substance which to date, has yet to kill a single person as a direct result of consuming it. FACT!

But regardless of the facts, the press in the UK, doubtless fed by the Labour party 'spin bowlers', has constantly refused to pick up the story of the widescale abuse of alcohol, choosing instead, to concentrate on the cannabis issue, a substance which governments across the European Dis-Union and the rest of world, are decriminalising wholesale.

Yet here in the UK, the government are seeking to reclassify cannabis as an answer to what?

In 2004, when then Home Secretary David Blunkett initially declassified cannabis from a Class B drug, to a Class C, he did so with the backing of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

Mr Blunkett commented "The reclassification of cannabis will allow the police to concentrate on the scourge of Class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine. A deadly and lethal white tide which is sweeping the nation."

Today, in 2008, ACPO has again come out in support of the government reclassifying cannabis BACK to Class B substance, which brings with it tougher jail sentences and higher fines.

Chief Constable of Humberside Tim Hollis told the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in Cardiff : “In light of what we know about confusion for young people about how serious the drug is — some thinking it is legal — and increasing medical evidence about the disproportionate harm to young people of strong cannabis there are persuasive arguments in our view to support the re-classification debate."

Thats rubbish Mr Hollis, as well you know and in the meantime has the "scourge" of Class A drugs been dealt with?

No it hasn't. In fact, the problem is worse today than it was back in 2004. A lot worse in fact, showing the abject capitulation on the part of the police to deal with a problem which is proving to be a bit more tricky to get to grips with than cannabis ever has.

2007 saw for the first time, children as young as 13 years being treated for heroin addiction. Thankfully this only came to light in my home area of South Wales and not in Humberside.

What say you on this issue Mr Hollis? What do you plan to do about it? The answer, is you plan to complain how bad cannabis is for our youth, and in doing so, side step the real social issues of 2008.

Heroin and cocaine are cheaper and more widely available today than they have ever been before and when you add to that the epidemic in prescription pill abuse, a substance which is manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry, from the same base ingredient as heroin in a lot of cases, the mist clears on why ACPO, and the government are so insistent on keeping cannabis firmly in the hands of organised criminals.

<span class=postbold><i>Without cannabis to bolster law enforcements drug results, there are no results.</i></span>

The fact is, if cannabis were to be decriminalised for personal consumption, the Vietnamese cannabis farms would have to move on, as has been proven in Holland and in Portugal, who do not have these issues to deal with, leaving the police with a real battle on their hands as they try to stem the dangerous and highly addictive opioid drugs.

<span class=postbigbold>A battle they already know is a lost cause.</span>

There is absolutely no doubt. Cannabis brings with it certain health risks but when stood side by side with those which come as a result of alcohol, of tobacco and of Class A drugs, they pale into insignificance.

Yes. Insignificance.

Were this not the case, in todays litigeous society, Canada and the US, two countries which grow cannabis on behalf of its medical consumers and then sells it to them, would be bankrupt in a month.

Even the United States. The very country which cannabis prohibition originated from after a lie was told in congress , allows medical patients to possess and to grow cannabis, supported by literally thousands of Physicians in daily practice.

US Presidential candidate Senator Mike Gravel from Alaska, speaking to teenagers at the respected Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, ('teenagers' by the way), said he believes cannabis should be available in shops, regulated by the government.

He continued, ""Alcohol is a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and I'm sure a lot of you have tripped out on alcohol," "It's a lot safer to do it on marijuana." VIDEO

The next President of the United States Barack Obama smoked cannabis and when asked if he inhaled, he said "Of course I inhaled. Thats the point, right?"

Which gives a message that whatever reasons the UK government are choosing to continue this ceaseless war against cannabis, public health isn't one of them.

So lets take a look at some possible reasons for this failure to listen to reason.

<span class=postbigbold>Alcohol</span>

If cannabis were decriminalised, the alcohol industry would be impacted to the tune of billions of pounds in lost revenues every single year.

I personally fought against alcohol dependency for almost 20 years, a problem made worse by the fact I was a truck driver, piloting 44 ton's of angry hot steel around Europe, whilst under the influence of alcohol every single day, and I was far from being alone in this situation.

Thankfully I, as well as every other road user I came into contact with, escaped from out of this dangerous situation unscathed, but lots of alcoholic truck drivers are not so lucky, with hundreds dying on european roads every year.

As a result of substituting alcohol with cannabis, I was able to turn my back on drinking (and truck driving) with no withdrawal symptoms and have been dry for almost 5 years to date, losing over 5 stone in weight in the process.

Just a single positive cannabis story among a great many I could quote and I'm without a single doubt - cannabis saved my life!

<span class=postbigbold>Pharmaceutical</span>

There's nothing worse than dealing with pain. This could be dental pain, period pain, a bad back etc, but no matter what pain you suffer, there's a pill you can buy, which is meant to relieve it.

Aspirin, paracetamol, Ibuprofen etc, generate billions of pounds in "over-the-counter" pharmacy sales every year, and as the body gets older and starts to break down, so conditions like sciatica, artheritis, spondylosis and hernia set in, compounding our misery even further.

But cannabis is already a proven pain-killer and trust me when I tell you it works.

Multiple Sclorosis sufferers, AIDS/HIV patients, people being treated for cancer while at the same time being treated for being treated for cancer, will all bear witness to the pain relieving, theraputic qualities and benefits of using cannabis.

A pain reliever which improves the quality of life for literally tens of thousands of patients around the world and on a daily basis. A fact the government and the pharmaceutical industry knows only too well.

But clearly not in the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Sativex IS available in the UK, through your doctor, albeit as a licensed drug. But you have the option to ask your doctor to recommend it for certain conditions.

Whilst it doesn't work for everyone, it beats the shit out of getting arrested so give it a shot.

<span class=postbigbold>Petroleum</span>

Perhaps one of the most surprising reasons cannabis remains illegal is as a result of the Petroleum Industry.

The petroleum by-products market is one of the few which could give the alcohol and tobacco industry's a run for their money or exceed them.

Every single man-made fibre we wear, or walk on, or sit on, we drive in, we fly in, we eat from, we cook with etc, is a by-product of the petroleum industry.

Ever since man made fibre's and plastic were invented a little over 80 years ago they've taken over in our homes, offices and factories.

But here's a fact you probably didn't realise. Almost every piece of plastic ever manufactured, still exists in one form or another, apart from a very small amount which has been incinerated.

Sure a lot of it is in a hole in the ground somewhere. Bulking up landfill sites it may be, but it still "exists".

A huge percentage of it is floating around the Pacific Ocean in phenomena called "The Eastern Garbage patch" or the "North Pacific Gyre".

According to Wikipedia; ""The North Pacific Gyre (also known as the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre) is a swirling vortex of ocean currents comprising most of the northern Pacific Ocean.

It is located between the equator and 50º N latitude and occupies an area of approximately ten million square miles (34 million km²)."

The centre of the North Pacific Gyre is relatively stationary region of the Pacific Ocean (the area it occupies is often referred to as the horse latitudes) and the circular rotation around it draws waste material in.

This has led to the accumulation of flotsam and other debris in huge floating 'clouds' of waste which have taken on informal names, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the Eastern Garbage Patch or the Pacific Trash Vortex.

While historically this debris has biodegraded, the gyre is now accumulating vast quantities of plastic and marine debris.

Rather than biodegrading, plastic photodegrades, disintegrating in the ocean into smaller and smaller pieces. These pieces, still polymers, eventually become individual molecules, which are still not easily digested.

Some plastics photodegrade into other pollutants.

The floating particles also resemble zooplankton, which can lead to them being consumed by jellyfish, thus entering the ocean food chain.

In samples taken from the gyre in 2001, the mass of plastic exceeded that of zooplankton (the dominant animalian life in the area) by a factor of six. Many of these long-lasting pieces end up in the stomachs of marine birds and animals.""

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is said to cover an area twice the size of Texas and every single one of us, no matter where we live on the planet, add's to this when we dispose of our plastic products.

Its an ecological disaster, quite literally "fuelled" by the petroleum industry, and one which never needed to happen in the first place, but for the fact hemp was outlawed at the same time as cannabis.

<span class=postbold>Hemp</span>

Hemp is a hugely useful commodity which we are not allowed to grow because it is a distant cousin to the much maligned cannabis plant.

Yet in countries around the world such as The Phillipines and Canada, hemp is grown, and sold to the UK and the United States as part of cannabis prohibition.

Hemp has many uses to us as a civilisation. Not least of which is the inherent strength the hemp fibre maintains, making it ideal for many different applications including rope, twine, clothing, fabrics of all descriptions including being built into the interior of luxury motor cars including Mercedes and BMW.

As a food source the hemp seed contains the fullest spectrum of essential omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids which the body needs to function properly but don't take my word for it.

If you are looking for a complete food supplement to feed your children, ask at your local health food shop about the benefits of whole, shelled hemp seed.

<span class=postbold>Natural Plastics</span>

Running through the centre of the hemp stalk is a material which is composed of 100% cellulose, or plastic, in its naturally occurring raw form.

With an absolute minimum of processing this cellulose core can be harvested and turned into any plastic object you can think of, or that you may use today, without the need for oil derricks or platforms and as a result the hemp plant is the only real alternative to our addiction to fossil fuels.

As if that wasn't reason enough to demand the UK grows hemp wholesale and as soon as possible, there's another reason you should know about.

<span class=postbold>Carbon Dioxide - Primary "Greenhouse" Gas</span>

When it grows, hemp sequesters literally hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, per hectare of hemp grown.

<span class=postbold>Here's the science</span>

Plants grow by using the process of photo-synthesis.

That is, active radiation (sunlight) falls upon the leaves of the plant, and the nutrients which are transported up from the routes via the internal distribution system, "photo-synthesize" these nutrients into sugars and starch's, which the plant uses to feed itself, but there's one important feature ingredient missing at this stage.

<span class=postbold>Carbon</span>

As you will already know everything which exists, does so as a result of carbon, and hemp loves carbon, which it uses as the building blocks to actually build itself. Lots of it.

If we as a planet were to undertake a 10 year program of growing hemp we could reduce the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere drastically, bringing our impending ecological disaster firmly into check, and all as a result of growing a single species of plant. FACT!

Unbelievable as it may sound, its absolutely true, and it won't take too many Google search's to find out everything you need to know.

All of which begs the question, why does cannabis (and hemp) remain illegal in the United Kingdom?

With the reclassification of cannabis back to a Class B substance, many thousands of British citizens will be imprisoned, and suffer the stigma of having a criminal record to contend with for the rest of their lives, and on what grounds?

Certainly not on the grounds of public health! The current policies concerning alcohol and tobacco, and the millions of deaths which have resulted to date disprove that theory once and for all.

The fact is, cannabis and hemp are illegal as a result of industry. At the whim of a few once powerful men.

Big business, which is set to lose trillions of pounds sterling as a result of people shifting over to more ecologically sound living and working practices and with support of the public, we can bring pressure to bear on governments around the world, to do away with ecologically unsound practices of drilling holes in the earth's crust and extracting the black stinking mess that is crude oil, because the fact is we don't need it anymore.

Whats this got to do with the legal status of cannabis in the UK?

It has everything to do with it and any politician, or high ranking police officer who stands in the way of this, should be removed from office at the earliest possible convenience, as for the sake of a few large industrialists they are commiting crimes against humanity.

Crimes which could be stopped today, but for having the balls to make a few tough decisions.

Taxi for Mr Brown?

[palmspringsbum]

Home Office Invites Cannabis Users to Debate Reclassification


PR.Canna Zine
January 16, 2008

It was in July 2007 that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to review the classification of cannabis.

<table class=posttable align=right width=203><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/smith_jacqui.jpg alt="Home Secretary Jacqui Smith cordially invites you to come to London and say your piece"></td></tr></table>Whilst this information is widely known throughout the UK cannabis community, whats not quite so common knowledge is the fact that you, and the rest of the general public, can take part too.

Ever since cannabis was reclassified by then Home Secretary David Blunkett back in 2004,

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith cordially invites you to come to London and say your piece

CLICK the image for more info a game of political ping pong has ensued between cannabis users, the police and politicians, who all have an opinion on this particularly hot political potato.

Speaking to ACPO, the Association Of Chief Police Officers, Chief Constable of Humberside Tim Hollis says,

“In light of what we know about confusion for young people about how serious the drug is —
some thinking it is legal — and increasing medical evidence about the disproportionate harm to young people of strong cannabis there are persuasive arguments in our view to support the re-classification debate."
Which is quite a turn around for ACPO, who whole-heartidly supported David Blunkett when the reclassification from class B to class C was first aired.

In the meantime Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has out and out asked for a total legalisation of all illicit drugs so its a mixed up and conveluted message we're having to deal with down on the street.

Mr Blunkett said the reasons behind the decision were, "So police could concentrate on dealing with class A drugs, and its logistical chain."

But thats gone out the window, as home office figures showing the amounts of people who now use class A drugs, bear witness.

Speaking recently, Mr Blunkett says of the period since cannabis was reclassified, "There has been a marked fall in cannabis use, which is the result of people being better informed."

Whether you agree or disagree with Mr Blunkett's reasons for the reduction in cannabis use or not is not the issue here. For a prominent ex-Cabinet minister to even allude to a drop in user figures must be seen as a result for the pro-cannabis community.

But where does the UK cannabis community go from here?

London would be a great start!

On the 5th of February the ACMD invites members of the public, including the cannabis community, to actually take part in the review meeting, and if cannabis and its legislation matters to you, now is the time to say your piece.

The day will comprise presentations from experts and stakeholders in relation to cannabis use, followed by an open forum for members of the public, upon which time YOU have the opportunity to have your say in whats proving to be one of the more challenging issues the Home Office has dealt with in recent times.

A complete agenda will be made available in due course, and we will publish the agenda via the Canna Zine website as and when it becomes available.

In the meantime if you have an opinion regarding the legality of cannabis in the UK, this is your opportunity to make it heard.

As and when Home Secretary Jacqui Smith makes her decision later in year, it will be too late to do anything about it if it goes against what you believe in, so now is your chance to get your point heard. Please take it.

Attendance is FREE but by registration only as places are limited. Places will be issued on a 'first come, first served' basis.

So take a deep breath and click the link to the Home Office.

Believe me, there are people in power who are COUNTING on the fact stoner paranoia will kick in and people will be afraid to take part, in the name of self-preservation.

SUCK IT UP Buddy! Nows the opportunity every member of every forum on the Internet has waited for, so please, use it wisely and make your voice heard.

We'll be there, covering it for the Canna Zine and I hope to see you there too!

By Ian Malley

To attend, please complete the registration form and email to ACMD@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk


Contact Address
ACMD Secretariat
3rd Floor (SW Quarter)
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

Telephone: 020 7035 0454

[palmspringsbum]

From The Times
January 19, 2008

Why science must become integral to government policy

MARK HENDERSON

The contribution of science to medicine should be plain to anybody who has ever taken an antibiotic or painkiller, but its value is not limited to the fruits of research. It is also essential to government decisions about health challenges, as John Denham, the Innovation Secretary, acknowledged this week.

It will not be possible to contain a flu pandemic, for example, without expert advice on which vaccines and antiviral drugs are a good investment. Strategies for fighting obesity must also be informed by research into which approaches work best.

Regulations applied to controversial medical technologies such as stem cells and gene therapy will directly affect how quickly they bring benefits for patients. And advances in genetics will require tough choices about how the NHS pays for “tailor-made” medicines such as Herceptin, which are effective but expensive.

The Government’s record of using science, however, has not always been proud. It came close to approving safety regulations that would have denied us many medical benefits of MRI scanning, though there was no evidence of any risk. It has also revised the drug classification system without relation to harm, creating the mistaken impression that cannabis is safe. Both issues might have been avoided had ministers placed more weight on scientific advice.

In a speech on Wednesday, Mr Denham accepted that there is a problem. Ministers and civil servants, he said, have not always sought out the expertise they need. But he highlighted a second issue too: it can be hard to persuade the best specialists to give up their time.

The problem stems from the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), by which university departments are graded according to the published work of their members. A poor performance can mean funding cuts, even an end to a faculty’s research programme. Mr Denham thinks this puts off scientists who might otherwise provide Whitehall with advice. They worry that if they sit on expert panels they will have less time to publish the research on which their departments’ finances depend.

The RAE is up for review this year and Mr Denham’s willingness to reform it is welcome. It is absurd that scientists funded by the taxpayer should risk being penalised by providing a public-spirited service. The Government, however, needs to make sure it actually uses the expert advisers that the new system frees up.

As Sir David King pointed out before retiring as chief scientist last month, Whitehall is often suspicious of his kind. Ministers and mandarins worry that scientific advice will close off politically palatable options. Yet science, as Mr Denham accepts, doesn’t usually work that way. The Government should listen to experts not to be told what to do but so it is properly aware of a policy’s consequences. Science will rarely supply a yes-or-no answer.

Drug classification is a case in point. The evidence that cannabis can trigger mental illness is strong, but that does not necessarily mean the drug should be illegal. The small risk to some users needs to be balanced against the costs of policing a ban and individual liberty.

That is a political choice, which should be taken by elected representatives. Science should inform the decision, not make it.

What is needed here is a shift in Whitehall culture, so that scientific input becomes integral to every aspect of policy-making. Ministers would not think of making critical decisions without consulting legal or economic advisers, yet neither do they allow these experts to run the show. They take soundings about the implications of options and decide accordingly. Science needs the same status if the Government is properly to handle issues such as obesity and flu. Mr Denham knows this. His challenge is to convince his colleagues of the case for change.

Mark Henderson is Science Editor of The Times

[palmspringsbum]

21 January 2008 17:31

Cannabis experts lash out at ministers for ignoring advice

The Independent
By Brian Brady and Jonathan Owen
Published: 20 January 2008

An angry row has blown up over proposals to upgrade cannabis to a class B drug, with leading experts from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) accusing the Government of a "deliberate leak" of its plans.

Ignoring a directive not to speak to journalists about reports that the Government has already made its mind up, ACMD member Professor Les Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University, said: "I was not pleased to read what appears to be a deliberate leak about the government's alleged intention to reclassify, regardless of advice received.

"If ACMD were to recommend no change and this were to happen, I believe it would be the first time that any Home Secretary acted against the recommendations offered and it would call into question the whole function and future of this group."

The outburst followed claims that Gordon Brown and the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, were determined to reverse the decision to downgrade the drug to class C when the ACMD completes its report in the next few months. Although its recommendations are not yet known, ministers are already making clear that Ms Smith is prepared to overrule the expert body.

But one former member of the influential council last night claimed the ACMD was totally opposed to the Government's stance. "There is no way that the ACMD would support any reclassification of cannabis, unless there were some political shenanigans going on," said the Reverend Martin Blakeborough.

Rev Blakeborough, who runs the Kaleidoscope drug abuse charity, said: "There is no significantly new evidence to suggest that cannabis is any more harmful than in the last review we did 18 months ago."

"The only reason that the ACMD is being forced to discuss this matter is because every new Home Secretary seems to want to show how tough they are," he added.

Professor David Nutt, chair of the ACMD's technical committee, which will start taking evidence on classification at a public meeting next month, said: "In the end, as with all laws, it's a political decision – the ACMD only advises."

But David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, criticised the ACMD's stance and said that it was dominated by people who advocate "harm reduction" and whose sympathies lie with pro-legalisation campaigners: "I actually think that the harm reduction/liberalisation/legalisation lobby is too strong in there (and in the Home Office). Some ACMD members are genuine but misguided, some are just the great and good with little understanding of the legalisation game that is being played by others."

The controversy comes days after new figures revealed that almost 500 people are being treated by the NHS every week for cannabis-related mental health problems. Since the Government downgraded it from a class B to a class C drug in 2004, the number of adults being treated for its effects has risen from 11,057 in 2004-05 to 16,685 in 2006-07. Also, the number of children needing medical attention because of cannabis use has increased to more than 9,200 – up from 8,014 in 2005-06.

Fears over the hidden health risks of the drug, particularly on the mental health of young people, have prompted the calls for a review of cannabis. More than 2.5 million 16-24 year-olds have used the drug. The ACMD is expected to make its own recommendations known in April.

In a statement, a Home Office spokesman reiterated that the ACMD's role is confined to providing "advice on classification".

[palmspringsbum]

Fears over increased cannabis use

Evening News 24
SARAH HALL
22 January 2008 07:00

An increasing number of adults are seeking medical help for problems linked to cannabis use, sparking fears more people are taking the drug.

Last year around 360 people in Norfolk needed medical help at hospitals or clinics for problems related to cannabis use, compared to just 249 the previous year.

It is thought people are being treated for mental health problems, such as psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia, as well as medical ones.

Cannabis is known to disrupt blood pressure and exacerbating heart and circulation disorders.

The figures have led to claims today that the recent downgrading of the drug from a class B to C has increased its use.

However, Norfolk Primary Care Trust (PCT) said the rise reflected improvements in drug treatment and recording and not cannabis use.

Sandra Flannigan, from Norwich Mind, described the increase as “worrying” and said people need to be more aware of the potential psychological side-affects of using the drug.

She said: “People are still very complacent because they think it is a non-additive drug but it is very easy to get psychologically addicted to it.

“People should take a step back and look at the long term effects. Short term the drug can make people paranoid, make them suffer memory loss and they can become paranoid.

“In the long term we are talking about severe depression being caused by cannabis. There has been a massive rise in mental health problems as the use of cannabis has gone up.”

She estimated that more than 70pc of people she refers for rehabilitation have some history of smoking cannabis and some people with pre-existing mental health problems use cannabis in the mistaken belief it will alleviate their anxieties.

William Armstrong, coroner for the Greater Norwich area, was also concerned at the rise.

He said: “There is clear evidence of cannabis aggravating the effects of mental health conditions, and there is a considerable amount of evidence that cannabis can be harmful for people with mental health problems.”

There have been fears nationally that cannabis addiction has soared because the drug has got much stronger.

Norwich North MP Ian Gibson believes the city is being increasingly targeted by drug dealers, which is making the problem worse.

He said: “We have to hope this is just a small blip and that this will go down next year. Norwich is obviously being targeted at the moment by drug dealers, I hope this problem disappears.”

Norfolk Constabulary said the number of seizures of the drug had more than doubled, from 29 in 2005 to 60 in the first nine months of 2007.

A police spokeswoman said: “Cannabis is currently a Class C drug and there are a number of dangers in relation to using it.

“One issue is that cannabis is often linked with other harder drugs. We know that a number of drug dealers will supply a range of different drugs and will often use cannabis as an introduction for their customers to other more harmful substances.”

Daniel Harry, partnership liaison officer from Norfolk Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) said: “There are a number of issues with the data collection that suggest that there has not been an increase in the numbers of cannabis users in treatment. In particular, the number of agencies returning treatment data to the DAAT rose in 2006/07. It is likely, therefore, that the increase in clients treated for cannabis in this year is due to this increased recording.

“There are a range of treatment options available for cannabis users in Norfolk. When someone refers themselves or is referred into treatment they are assessed by a skilled substance misuse worker to determine the most appropriate treatment for them. This is most likely to be a period of structured counselling but may also include assistance with general health and social care needs.”

<small>Anyone with concerns about their drug or alcohol should contact their local treatment provider or GP. Further details on how to do this are on the DAAT website: www.nordat.org.uk or call the Matthew Project 24/7 helpline on 0800 764 754. </small>

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis law change inevitable

<span class=postbigbold>The Home Office has announced the laws currently regulating the use of cannabis are to be changed.</span>

PR CannaZine
January 27, 2008

Although the announcment was made in a back-handed manner, via a leak to one or two chosen news organisations, which caused a furore amongst members of the ACMD, the advisory board put in place to assist government in the creation of its national drug policy.

The reasons for this are plain to see as, according to a former member of the ACMD, the Rev. Blakeborough , who runs the Kaleidescope Drugs Charity, "There is no significantly new evidence to suggest that cannabis is any more harmful than in the last review we did 18 months ago."

Melanie Phillips from The Spectator said , "Gordon Brown has apparently realised the catastrophic error of downgrading it to class C, and the lethal signal this sent out that the law was now winking at cannabis use.

The full extent of this disaster is becoming plainer by the day, with the evidence of the huge rise in psychotic mental illness and associated crimes -- including incidents of deranged violence -- resulting from its use now so widespread as to be undeniable."

Excuse me?

If you want to talk about deranged violence you need look no further than the TV documentary's which follow the Police around our towns and cities on a Friday and Saturday night, picking up the pieces of a generation hell bent on violence, and fueled by the alcohol industry, a multi-billion pound reason to keep cannabis illegal.

The diatribe from The Spectator, who's strapline reads "Champagne for the brain", continued, "...But there was plenty of evidence then of the terrible harm that cannabis does to the brain; the committee simply ignored it....It’s war over the weed; and Brown must win it."

<span class=postbold>Differing Opinions</span>

Unfortunately any politician seen to have an opinion on cannabis which goes against the "company line", and there are one or two quiet individuals, is setting themselves up for a shortlived career.

Another indication of the apparent double standards applied to cannabis, a substance which, according to a Member of Parliament from New Zealand, "....encompasses 12,000 years of human experience and is now used daily by enormous numbers of people for recreation, yet there is no "credible" medical report to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death."

Nandor Tanczos, MP for the NZ Green Party continues, "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects; however, researchers have been unable to identify the amount of cannabis which would need to be consumed in order to cause death. Estimates indicate that a person would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much cannabis as is contained in one cannabis cigarette, and they would have to consume this amount in a short space of time (e.g. less than 1 hour)."

What I don't understand is how a politician from another country can see, and say this, but our own politicians can't?

Someone needs to ask the question "Who is telling lies here?", as its becoming clear, cannabis psychosis is actually only affecting those who choose not to consume it.

Historically the UK has witnessed a number of similar campaigns, which have seen public opinion sitting on one side of the fence, while the government sits stubbornly on the other.

Homosexuality falls squarely into this category.

<span class=postbold>"Three Men Sentenced to Prison For Homosexuality." </span>

I mean, can you imagine the uproar such a headline would create?

But this actually happened in the United Kingdom, and not very long ago.

2 men were sentenced to 18 months in prison, for allegedly comitting acts of gross indecency and a third man, a member of the aristocracy, Lord Edward Montagu, to 12 months, a lesser sentence as a result of his "standing" in society. Whats all that about?

Perhaps most surprising is the fact these imprisonments happened as a result of "acts" which were carried out amongst and between consenting adults.

Homosexuality in 2008, is as natural and as common place in the UK, as dirty trains which run behind schedule or single parent 14 year old school girls, but back in the early 1950's, there was a witch hunt taking place similar to that which surrounds cannabis today.

A situation, that witnessed a court case reach the public eye which would shake the very foundations of the government.

A case involving members of the aristocracy as well as "lesser" citizens such as you and I, being imprisoned for the crime of gross indecency - the term used in Parliament and the House of Lords, for homosexuality.

<span class=postbold>Disease?</span>

In post war Britain homosexuality was in the eyes of government, looked upon as a "disease".

A disease which was not only against the law but which was actively pursued and persecuted by the nations police.

So dead set against homosexuals was the establishment, the CIA became involved and pressured the United Kingdom into making sure these acts of gross indecency, commited by "perverts", "sodomites", and "buggerers" were stamped out and the lengths the police would go to in making arrests for homosexuality were by todays standards, staggering.

In much the same way as the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) shapes UK drug law today?

In a clear and present case of entrapment, plain clothes police officers would hang around in public toilets (cottages), masturbating openly, waiting for gay men to reveal themselves and when they did, they were taken away, viciously beaten up and arrested.

House search's would be carried out with no search warrant as the police looked for the slightest suggestion of homosexual relationships, and punished them with no thought for the human rights of the accused.

One of the three men imprisoned in the case mentioned earlier, author and journalist Peter Wildeblood, would become the first gay rights campaigner on his release from Wormwood Scrubs in March 1955.

A well educated, eloquent man who would later be recognised as the first person ever to admit openly in a court of law, to being a homosexual, he wrote a book called "Against the Law", in which his three main points were that homosexuality between consenting adults in private ought not be against the law, (in fact a major point the Legalise Cannabis Alliance has always questioned, is why cannabis cannot be used by consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes?).

Points 2 and 3 were, that prison itself, only encourages homosexuality, and in the inhumane conditions prisoners were kept under in Wormwood Scrubs there was no attempt at readying prisoners for release. No thought for the prisoners rehabilitation.

In a remarkeable parallel, locking people up for cannabis offences, in a prison system riddled with more of a drugs problem than that which exists "outside", is more likely to produce ex-prisoners who are hooked on class A drugs on their release back into society.

<span class=postbold>Wolfenden</span>

After serving 12 of 18 months, Peter Wildeblood appeared and gave evidence at the Wolfendon Committee, a Home Office departmental committee of 15 men and women which, in a similar vein to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the UK drug situation, was convened to "consider the law and practice relating to homosexual offences and the treatment of persons convicted of such offences by the courts."

The Committee was chaired by John Wolfenden (1906-1985), who had previously been a headmaster, Vice Chancellor of Reading University and later on he became the Director of the British Museum.

Other members of the Committee included a consultant psychiatrist, the chairman of Uxbridge magistrates court, the vice-president of the City of Glasgow Girl Guides, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, a professor of moral theology, a High Court judge, a Foreign Office minister, and the Conservative MP for Putney who were all brought together to make fair and balanced "moral judgements" on homosexuals.

The Committee met for the first time on 15th. September, 1954, in a room provided by the Home Office - the famed "Room 101".

<span class=postbold>Huntley & Palmer</span>

So concerned was the Home Office and its administrators, that the talk of homosexuality in front of secretarial staff would upset their delicate sensibilities, they issued an internal memorandum in which they referred to homosexuals as "Huntley's" and prostitutes as "Palmers", (Huntley & Palmer were a prominent biscuit manufacturer).

The committee met for 62 days out of the three years in total these deliberations took place - 32 days of which were spent interviewing witnesses, including Peter Wildeblood.

As a result, "The Report of the Departmental Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution" was published on September 3rd 1957.

In all, 13 members served for the entire three years the committee deliberated and of them, in what can only be described as a remarkeable turn-around of opinions, which was brought about in no small part by Peter Wildeblood's evidence, 12 recommended that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults should no longer be a criminal offence. The committee also suggested the age of consent for this act, should be set at 21 years.

Perhaps more interestingly, the committee also found that, contrary to the evidence provided by nearly all the psychiatric and psychoanalytic witnesses, the so called "experts" who maintained the illegal status of homosexuality, "homosexuality cannot legitimately be regarded as a disease, because in many cases it is the only symptom and is compatible with full mental health in other respects".

A rather back-handed way of admitting defeat.

<span class=postbold>Blizzard</span>

The report resulted in a veritable press storm. A blizzard of headlines ensued which filled the front pages of every British newspaper. A platform which stands as judge and jury for many laws even today.

As prostitution was under the spotlight, and being analysed and discussed by the Wolfendon committee at the same time as homosexuality the papers coined the term "The Vice Report", which has stuck ever since.

When Wolfenden found out his own son was gay he wrote to him requesting: "That we stay out of each other's way for the time being and that "you wear rather less make-up."

John Wolfenden would go on to be listed at number 45 in the top 500 lesbian and gay heroes in The Pink Paper, 26th. September, 1997.

The first parliamentary debate was intitiated on 4th. December, 1957 by Frank Pakenham (Viscount Pakenham, later known as Lord Longford). He had already become known as a social reformer and prison visitor, and as a result of the Montagu trials he had become associated with Peter Wildeblood and C. H. Rolph (Bill Hewitt) who was to become the chair of the Homosexual Law Reform Society.

Of the seventeen peers who spoke in the debate, only eight broadly supported the recommendations in the Wolfenden Report.

The Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Lord Kilmuir) spoke for the government and expressed doubt that the general population would support the recommendations and stated that further research was required.

In 1958 the Home Office asked the sociologist Richard Hauser to undertake a survey of homosexuality in Great Britain and the rest, as they say, is history.

<span class=postbold>The similarities</span>

The pro-cannabis community in the UK, which numbers quite literally millions of people, are afraid to speak out for what they believe, for fear of retribution and persecution.

For every single even slightly pro-cannabis news report published, there are 1000 anti-cannabis reports, many of which are unsubstantiated, simply repeating twisted, distorted facts which fly in the face of what many people know and understand from personal experience rather than here-say and rhetoric.

Over the last couple of decades arrests for cannabis offences have climbed sharply. A situation which again mirrors homosexuality in post war Britain;

<span class=postbold>A nation purges itself</span>

"In 1938 there were 134 prosecutions in England for sodomy and bestiality, 822 for attempted sodomy and indecent assaults and 320 for gross indecency. Fifteen years later, in 1952, at the height of anti-homosexual feeling in the UK, these figures had risen to 670, to 3,087 and to 1,686 respectively. In the period between [1938] and 1955 homosexual offences known to the police increased by 850 per cent compared with 223 per cent for all other indictable offences."

A situation in law which would later be known as "The Great Purge" - Richard Davenport-Hines, "Sex, Death and Punishment", (1990).

<span class=postbold>Cannabis Law</span>

The similarities which can be drawn between the case for homosexuality, and that for cannabis creates many parallel's.

There can be no doubt that cannabis is at the centre of a witch hunt. A campaign which takes place publicly, on the front pages of every broadsheet and tabloid title across the globe. But in this instance the scales of justice are weighted firmly in favour of the establishment.

Although the legality surrounding arrest and detainment may have changed these days, there can be little doubt that in times gone by the over-zealous use of police force around the world has resulted in more than one or two death's, sometimes as a result of a simple cannabis possession charge.

<span class=postbold>Health & Safety</span>

The health implications of homosexuality would have been a driving force in bringing this matter to the forefront of public attention. Lets face it we wouldn't want a lot of diseased men running around unfettered, would we?

These days the sketchy links cannabis has with mental health is used to piledrive the fact "cannabis is dangerous" to an unsuspecting and unknowing public, who blindly follow the headlines from whatever newspaper they read, as they scream "Cannabis Psychosis", "Cannabis Mental Health Concerns" etc.

What they dont tell you is cannabis is no more addictive than coffee, and is a lot LESS dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco, but for reasons unknown to the majority of the newspaper buying public, this information is withheld.

Cannabis remains illegal on the grounds of health and safety.

Why?

Because it never receives a fair hearing, the reporting is always "tainted" with rhetoric, the facts quoted come from sources which are secretive and as a result, dubious. The links to health concerns at best, tenuous and anyone who attempts to point this out, is bullied into submission with virtual threats and legal posturing as witnessed recently right here on the Canna Zine which goes against the freedom of speech on which the very fabric of our society is woven.

Let me put it another way. Any topic which carries with it "all parties" political support needs looking at closely, because for the Conservatives to agree with the Labour party, there has to be something in it for all concerned. That's politics.

Indeed the Wolfenden committee was initially set up to reaffirm the governments line on homosexuality. What the Home Office never accounted for was the sense of fair play which John Wolfenden would bring to proceedings and ultimately the Wolfenden committee would go on to bring about law reforms which were the polar opposite of that which it was supposed to.

In a similar vein we have the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. The governments board of advisors who are in place to oversee Home Office drug policy and advise accordingly. members of which, who are clearly driven by the want to reduce harm from drug abuse, over other, financially driven motivations which influence other's in the decision making chain.

Like the government for instance, who, in the case of cannabis, decided for the first time ever, not to take the councils advice, calling into question the existence (and the expense) of the group, with the unilateral decision to reclassify cannabis to a class B drug.

<span class=postbold>Change is Innevitable</span>

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact cannabis law will change and it will eventually change to reflect public opinion.

Maybe not today or tomorrow.

But when a politician comes to power who has the balls to stand and face the tempest of vitriol which will no doubt befall them as a result of what are currenlty seen as anarchic views on the legalisation of cannabis, and the public is allowed to speak out, and give their own opinions?

Opinions which are untainted by the constant flow of yellow journalism which surrounds the cannabis issue?

Then the laws will change.

If cannabis is as dangerous as the "experts" claim, let the people decide by way of a national referendum on drugs?

To keep the drug issue locked away from the public decision making process, merely serves to enforce a death sentence on the many thousands who will needlessly die as a result of using dirty drugs, or dirty paraphernalia.

With regard to mental health, people who are pre-disposed to this issue need to be able to speak out, without fear of reprisals at the hands of law enforcement. And until such time as this takes place I will make a bold prophecy.

This time next year, under the current regime of prohibition and law enforcement, the figures for people being harmed by drugs will have risen, as will the amounts of people being punished for using illicit drugs.

This is the pattern of over 80 years of cannabis prohibition, and if nothing changes, everything will stay just the same. SOURCE

By Ian Malley

<hr class=postrule><small>Set up in February 2007, the Canna Zine is the first-in-the-world news agency dedicated to the global issues surrounding cannabis, hemp and illicit drugs in general. To post your press release, sign up for a free account on http://pr.cannazine.co.uk , post your news release, and the Canna Zine will do the rest.

Canna Zine - more 'evolution' than revolution! A new era in postitive response communications. http://cannazine.co.uk</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Skunk overtakes cannabis resin in British drugs market as experts and police demand 'softly softly' U-turn

By JAMES SLACK
The Daily Mail
Last updated at 09:25am on 6th February 2008


The health establishment has become "complacent" over the dangers of cannabis, the mental health tsar admitted yesterday.

Professor Louis Appleby, national director for mental health, spoke out as it emerged that the streets are awash with "skunk", a highly potent form of the drug.

The professor's admission came at the start of a hearing to decide if the Government's "softly softly" policy should be reversed.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs must make recommendation to ministers on whether to reclassify the drug as Class B.

<table class=posttable width=468><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/british-reclassification-debate.jpg></td></tr></table>

An Ipsos MORI poll for the council, published last night, found that 58 per cent of the public want it to be higher than the current Class C. Of these, 24 per cent said it should be pushed straight to Class A.

An alliance of doctors, police, magistrates and families whose lives have been ruined by cannabis all demanded the reversal of Labour's decision to downgrade cannabis, taken in January 2004.

However, the most surprising intervention of the day came from Professor Appleby, who admitted: "I think we, as health professionals, have for laudable reasons and probably until the last few years been guilty of complacency on the issue of cannabis.

"From the perspective of mental health services, cannabis is a harmful drug that is part of, and I would argue contributes to, a pattern of relapse and risk in mental health patients.

"Now the evidence is pointing towards cannabis as a cause of severe mental illness. A change in classification could reinforce a strong public health message."

Mental health charities also painted a worrying picture of drug dealers preying on mental health patients while they were being treated.

The charity Sane warned that 30 per cent of hospitals believed dealers were either operating on the premises or just outside.

Prof Appleby later told the Times it was "well known" that they managed to get onto hospital wards in mental health units and exploited seriously ill patients.

She said that in some cases they pretended they knew or were related to a patient to gain access, but that in others they were their regular dealer or a friend.

Most dealers would not be at the top end of the criminal chain but more likely to be selling on small amounts of cannabis, according to the health chief.

Marcus Roberts, policy director of mental illness charity MIND, agreed there was no doubt that drug dealing was happening on a lot of wards.

He said: "Drugs coming on to wards is a significant issue for health workers as they can impede and setback remedies and treatment in their units."

Mr Roberts said patients themselves might also sell cannabis on to others in treatment if they were given access to more than they needed.

Dr Matthew Hickman, a drugs expert at Bristol University, also told the council that by 2010 a quarter of all new cases of schizophrenia will be cannabis linked.

The warning that super-strength "skunk" has a vice-like grip on the market came from the Home Office's own research.

The powerful drug has grown from just 15 per cent of cannabis seizures in England and Wales six years ago to 70-80 per cent now.

Dr Les King, an adviser to the Home Office scientific development branch, said several hundred samples seized by police on the streets in just the last weeks showed levels of skunk had rocketed, while cannabis resin had slumped.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said it "unequivocally" wanted cannabis restored to Class B. It said relaxation had led to an explosion in the number of cannabis farms, and confusion over whether the drug was even illegal.

The Magistrates Association said the reclassification had caused harm on the streets by sending out "mixed messages and confusion".

Gordon Brown has indicated he wants cannabis pushed back to Class B, announcing a review within weeks of becoming Prime Minister last summer.

But the Government must first wait for a recommendation from the advisory council, a body of scientific experts which rejected the case for change as recently as January 2006.

Yesterday, the council indicated it could oppose such a move for a second time.

When Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of Sane, said she believed cannabis should be upgraded back to Class B to combat what she said were mixed messages on its harmfulness, council chairman Professor Sir Michael Rawlins asked: "Are you really wanting people to go to prison for five years for possession?"

If the council decides cannabis should remain a Class C drug, the Home Office would be faced with the dilemma of whether to ignore its recommendation.

Such a move would almost certainly lead to embarrassing resignations from the panel, which will announce its verdict later this year.

In a letter released yesterday, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said no decision had yet been reached by Government.

Smoking cannabis can greatly increase gum disease, research shows.

A study of almost 1,000 young men and women in Dunedin, New Zealand, revealed that the heaviest smokers ran three times the risk of sore, bleeding and receding gums as those who never touched the drug.

The finding held true even when cigarette smoking, which is already known to raise the risk of gum disease, was taken into account.

[palmspringsbum]

GRIEVING DAD'S DRUG PLEA


BY OLIVER WRIGHT
The Leicester Mercury
10:30 - 08 February 2008


<table class=posttable align=right width=161><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/barton-harvey_joanna.jpg></td></tr></table>A father who believes his daughter was driven to suicide by cannabis has called for the drug to be reclassified.

Carl Barton-Harvey, from Lutterworth, has spoken just days after a Government body began hearing the latest evidence about the drug's impact on health and crime.

The 65-year-old believes his daughter, Joanna, would still be alive had it not been for her use of cannabis, and said he would write to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith calling for the drug to be moved from Class C to Class B.

Joanna, a maths teacher, battled with mental illness for 10 years before she jumped to her death from a motorway bridge near her home in Lutterworth in November 2003.

The 33-year-old had been a heavy cannabis smoker since she was at university, and was repeatedly admitted to psychiatric hospitals after becoming increasingly dependent on the drug.

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett downgraded the drug from Class B to Class C in January 2004, despite widespread concerns from medical advisors and the United Nations that reclassification would lead people to believe the drug was safe.

Mr Barton-Harvey said: "Cannabis must be elevated to a level where it is deemed dangerous.

"I can't understand why they dropped the grade.

"It is not just the user that suffers but all the people associated with them - their parents, friends and colleagues.

"As far as I am concerned, it is a dangerous drug and is a gateway to other drug problems.

"We have to get this sorted out now or there will be a real problem in the next ten to 20 years."

A hearing into the issue by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) began on Tuesday after Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last July that the Government would review cannabis's status.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith also asked the ACMD to review reports that danger from the drug was increasing due to wider availability of stronger strains, such as "skunk".

Paul Clarke, service director at Leicester Community Projects Trust, which has a drugs advice centre in New Walk, in the city centre, said downgrading the drug five years ago had been a "mistake".

He said: "I think it sent a very mixed message, particularly to young people, about the level of harm that use of cannabis can lead to.

"Cannabis can be a very destructive drug."

[palmspringsbum]

OAP cannabis crime creates only one victim - the pharmaceutical industry

CannaZine
February 20, 2008

An old age pensioner who grew his own cannabis at his South London home has been fined £70 and given a conditional discharge by magistrates.

Frederick Robert Turner, a horticulture specialist, used his skills to grow the plants in relief of a painful and debilitating arthiritic condition.

Turner, who suffers from high blood pressure as well as chronic rheumatoid athritis, claims using the drug helps him to deal with the pain of his inflamed joints, which are under constant attack from his body's immune system, (see Rheumatoid Athritis for more information).
Have you suffered at the hands of the law? Get in touch..

He lives solely off his £100 per week pension and is therefore unable to afford the "luxury" of buying cannabis from an illegal drug dealer, so he took it upon himself to grow his own. A situation which is legal in other parts of the European Union, with a doctors note confirming the condition.

At a time when cannabis and its beneficial qualities are in the public eye surely this case begs the question of the validity of creating a criminal out of an otherwise law-abiding UK citizen? A 67 year old-aged pensioner no less, and I would be interested in hearing the comments of ACPO cannabis leader Simon Byrne, anti-cannabis campaigner Debra Bell or Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in this instance?

Whilst pressure groups and anti-cannabis government lobby's take up the lions share of the press, supposedly to protect the Great British youth from damaging itself with cannabis, who is looking after the best interests of people like Frederick Turner?

Legalise Cannabis Alliance
Alun Buffry from the Legalise Cannabis Alliance commented; "The punishment of a victimless cannabis user is normally a bad enough flaw in the British Justice System, but in this case Mr Turner is faced with a choice of continuing to break the law in order to ease his pain and suffering from a dreadful condition - rheumatoid arthritis - or to spend the rest of his life in agony. Clearly expensive pharmaceutical drugs with unpleasant side-effects are not helping him - the cannabis plant apparently does. What makes this even sadder is that it is WE, the taxpayer, who pay for these court cases and it is about time that stopped."

In a court case which has doubtless cost the public purse 10's of thousands of pounds to bring about, is a £70 fine a worthwhile outcome for the expense? What were the Crown Prosecution Service thinking even bringing this case to court?

Isn't it about time we fell into line with the rest of the EU, by allowing people with a bona-fide medical reason to use cannabis, and to do so without fear of molestation by the police?

Its hard to comprehend what good fining Frederick Turner 2 thirds of his weekly income has actually achieved, except maybe making an example of him by causing purposeful hard-ship in the name of law-enforcement.

It would appear the £70 is not a fine as such, but more a covert tax levy, in a case which only has one victim, and that victim is ultimately the pharmaceutical industry.

[palmspringsbum]

BBC film to show effects of injecting cannabis

The Telegraph
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:35am GMT 26/02/2008

<span class=postbigbold>The BBC is to break one of the last broadcasting taboos by screening footage of a woman injecting drugs.</span>

Nicky Taylor, a journalist, is filmed smoking cannabis in cafes in Amsterdam before injecting the main ingredient of the stronger "skunk" variety of the drug in a laboratory.

The programme, provisionally called How High Can I Get?, was commissioned from an independent producer.

advertisementIt will be broadcast on BBC3 in the next few months and comes as the Government considers increasing the penalties for cannabis possession.

Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of Sane, a mental health charity, said: "It is difficult to see what can be learnt from this experiment. Cannabis affects no two individuals in the same way.

"The majority of people may have little or no reaction, even to stronger forms of the drug.

"But for the 10-20 per cent of those who are considered to be vulnerable, taking it could lead to psychotic illness. "

David Davies, the shadow Home Secretary, said on Sunday night: "I very much hope that this programme will contain a strong anti-drugs message that will stop people experimenting rather than glamourising drugs use."

Miss Taylor was injected with THC, the main component of "skunk" cannabis, last October at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London.

The experiment is legal as it takes place in a laboratory licensed to carry out such tests.

The scientists are running tests to analyse claims that skunk cannabis, which accounts for 80 per cent of the drug sold on the street, causes psychosis.

Miss Taylor was then filmed as the effects of the drug took hold. Dr Paul Morrison, one of the scientists in charge of the programme, told The Daily Telegraph: "I can't talk about the experiences of any of our participants without their say-so."

The BBC also declined to provide a detailed account of what happened.

However, one source who has seen the effects on Miss Taylor said: "The effect was dramatic. It was unpleasant."

The BBC is understood to be keen to show the film on the eve of a decision by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to recriminalise cannabis by upgrading it from C to B status. Her decision is expected in the spring.

A BBC spokesman said on Sunday that the programme would be screened after the 9pm watershed to discourage younger viewers.

She said: "Nicky fully researched the subject and undertook the trials under supervision, with medical advice. She has not suffered any ill effects since filming finished.

"The film unequivocally highlights the risks of consuming the drug and will be scheduled post-watershed.

"Nicky Taylor is a critically acclaimed journalist who becomes fully immersed in her subject, in order to highlight the risks of potentially dangerous activities.

"Her films have included investigations into plastic surgery, in which she undertook surgery, and binge drinking in which she drank large amounts of alcohol.

"Her approach has proved successful in highlighting important health risks with a younger audience."

The programme breaks one of the last broadcasting taboos. An episode of Panorama that featured a reporter taking LSD in the 1950s was not broadcast for more than 30 years because of fears it may encourage drug taking.



Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[palmspringsbum]

How low can the BBC get?


The Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 25/02/2008

The forthcoming BBC documentary How High Can I Get? could equally well have been entitled "How Low Can You Get?"

Nicky Taylor, who describes herself as an "immersion journalist", was filmed smoking cannabis in Amsterdam and then being injected with the main ingredient of "skunk", in order to demonstrate the effects to the viewing public.

Invaluable documentary, or cynical populist voyeurism? You can decide - as long as you swell BBC3's slender ratings by watching the film, which would seem to settle the question rather convincingly.

The Corporation is coy about how the reporter responded to her experience, making one suspect that she simply fell asleep, which would not be great entertainment.

An eyewitness has, however, been permitted to confide that the result of the experiment was "dramatic" and "unpleasant", which should be enough to make people tune in, especially those who have previously watched Ms Taylor undergoing plastic surgery or getting legless on alcopops in pursuit of her investigative craft.

It is arguable that, at a time when medical literature, press reports and state propaganda seem ineffectual in deterring the young from indulging in illegal drugs, sensationalist television is the medium that might do some good; but it is also undeniable that it is modern television itself that has shortened the average attention span, discouraged literacy and analytical thought, and made the young all the keener to become slaves to mindlessness.

The BBC is as guilty as any other broadcasters, so it is only right that it should address the consequences of its actions.

Astonishingly, some critics of the programme have voiced the concern that the sight of a television journalist using drugs might "glamorise" the practice.

But when a programme like this is the biggest news in the spring schedule, how can they possibly still think that television is glamorous?

[palmspringsbum]

Lancing Cannabis Cafe - Class War


PR CannaZine
March 1, 2008

The hypocrisy of UK politics is nothing new to those of us who have been involved in the cannabis debate for any period of time. Indeed some would say the situtation which the people involved with the Worthing Cannabis Cafe face is nothing new. Nothing at all new.

The government have decided, in a last stand before the Conservative party oust them from power, to wage a war against working class people who choose to consume cannabis for recreational pleasure, over the government's own tipple of choice alcohol.

In the most blatant case yet, of poachers turned game-keepers, former cannabis smokers Vernon Coaker and Jacqui Smith have between them, decided they will represent a public minority who have decided the Worthing Cannabis Cafe should not exist, and regardless of the fact the Worthing Cafe's have shown a marked drop in crime in the locality.

<span class=postbigbold>Law enforcement intervention from the very highest office in the land.</span>

Chris Baldwin has always been involved in the attempts to legalise cannabis cafe's, and has built a regime which doesn't allow any hard drugs into previous cafe's he was involved with, doesn't allow the sale of cannabis to minors, offers a 10% discount to people in uniform, but perhaps most importantly, doesn't (or didn't) choose to serve alcohol and perhaps with this last fact we are getting a little closer to the real issue.

The British Medical Association has recently slammed the government for its so called "cosy relationship with the drink industry", so it would be fair to assume anything which is likely to threaten alcohol's hold over the Great British public would feel the full thrust of British law and in this instance, that certainly seems to be the case.

The streets of London are a no go zone every single night of the week, with gangs of drunken yobs roaming around spoiling for a fight.

Indeed Home Secretary Jacqui Smith even commented she wouldn't walk around alone in the evening.

But down in a sleepy backwater on the South Coast, the Home Office has decided, at the behest of a publicity hungry local MP called Tim Loughton, to get involved in a situation which sees a small cannabis cafe getting a bit too big for its boots.

According to Tim Loughton the cannabis cafe in Worthing attracts all kinds of low lives to the area. A clear indication of the establishments fear of a community and a culture which it simply doesn't, or perhaps chooses not to understand.

The drug war has moved on from what it used to be.

Once upon a time the fight against drugs was seen as a battle to protect our young people from harming themselves with a substance many knew little about.

But today, in 2008, with the American College of Physicians and its 124,000 practising doctors overtly supporting the use of medical marijuana, with pre-eminent psychiatrists from the illustrious Harvard Medical School debunking and disproving the claims of brain damage, with high ranking UK police officers decrying the current drug rating system as "unworkable", and with European partner states such as Holland, Belgium and Portugal, using their own system as a blue-print which shows the UK Liberal Democrats are onto a winner by offering to decriminalise self sustained, personal cannabis cultivation and social supply, the government has decided to drop its premise of acting in the best interests of the Great British public, and instead, as was commented on recently by the British Medical Association, has decided to serve and to protect the alcohol industry, by stamping down on cannabis, its use, and its users.

Make no mistake, this Labour government, the most "Conservative" Labour government in recent times, have changed the angle of attack, from trying to deal with high level drug trafficking, to targeting drug users down at the most basic level.

Working class people who live on our council estates, and in doing so, they have created the most overt and obvious "class system" in recent times.

Its no longer a drug war. Its a class war.

[palmspringsbum]

Commercial Cannabis Cultivation Reaches Epidemic Proportions - Why?

PR Cannazine
February 29, 2008


The jailing of a Vietnamese cannabis farmer in South Wales earlier in the week is just the latest link in a chain of events which affects not just South Wales or the UK for that matter, but the entire western world. Or at least the greater part of it.

Vietnamese Chien Quang Nguyen, 24, was sent to jail with a recommendation that he be deported after he appeared before Newport crown court earlier this week charged with the cultivation of cannabis.

Police said the cannabis factory Nguyen operated in Bargoed South Wales, could have earned organised criminals £120,000 every year and if you put that amount on top of every other cannabis house bust in the last year or two, it adds to a black economy which is worth literally billions of pounds sterling annually, and on a global scale.

<span class=postbigbold>Scandinavia</span>

Norway is the latest country to go public with regard to the cannabis epidemic its residential neighbourhoods are currently experiencing, as Norwegian police acknowledge the wholesale cannabis cultivation is most likely linked to Vietnamese organised crime.

"We've noticed that many of these cases bear similarities," Atle Roll-Mathiesen told Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. "We've gotten involved, to look at the links between them."

Norwegian Police found more cannabis greenhouse operations in otherwise ordinary Norwegian neighbourhoods over the weekend, and now they're following the scent of links among them all.

A raid on a house in Kongsberg resulted in the fourth seizure of what police are calling indoor "plantations" in just a week. Around 400 cannabis plants were found in the house, which was privately rented out. A Vietnamese man was arrested at the scene, and was to face charges on Monday.

The Kråkerøy and Kongsberg seizures were the 14th and 15th in recent months in southern Norway. Other cannabis greenhouse operations have been found in Telemark, Buskerud, Hedmark and Østfold counties, and several have involved Vietnamese tenders like at the house in Konsberg.

Police acknowledged over the weekend that they think the cannabis operations are linked, and the national crime unit Kripos has been called in to aid local investigations.

Nearly 60 persons, mostly of Vietnamese background, are now in custody in Norway after police raided yet another house south of Oslo Wednesday night and found a new cannabis plantation inside.

The modest house in rural Enebakk contained nearly 500 cannabis plants, all being cultivated under sophisticated watering, lighting and heating systems that ravaged the home's interior. In most cases, the houses are rendered uninhabitable. The plants are generally tended by Vietnamese gardeners, and police are actively trying to find out who is behind them.

<span class=postbigbold>The America's</span>

In the United States and in Canada its been much the same story over the last 12 months as drug enforcement agencies struggle to get a grip on the marijuana growing explosion.

Affluent neighbourhoods in California and elsewhere have been targetted by organised Vietnamese crime gangs, who rent private domestic residences, kit them out as indoor growing operations and harvest literally millions of dollars worth of marijuana every year, and seemingly regardless of the amounts of money police spend on enforcement - currently around $42 Billion a year.

A DEA agent from California was quoted as saying "For every grow house we shut down, there are another 50 running to a successful conclusion and with this sort of payback for what is seen as a modest investment, I don't see an end to the cannabis boom anytime soon."

Which begs the question? Whats causing it?

If you listen to UK politicians they, along with the active anti-cannabis lobby, would have you believe the blame lies squarely at the feet of former Home Secretary David Blunkett and his decision to downgrade cannabis from a class B drug, to a class C. But after looking at similar circumstances from around the world that becomes a fantasy. A spin doctors explanation which assists with an agenda nothing to do with the true picture and even less to do with harm reduction and public health, and a lot to do with money.

But why would politics wish to demonise cannabis and its users with tales of ailments like mental health issues which include schizophrenia and brain damage, kidney damage, premature aging, teeth falling out, and a plethora of other woes?

We can speculate all we like but the fact is the recreational use of cannabis stands on a lot of corporate toes, not least of which is the alcohol industry.

In a report published in The Guardian recently, Vivienne Nathanson, the British Medical Association's head of ethics and science, criticised the UK government for its cosy relationship with the drinks industry, which she says, "had led to voluntary codes of practice which simply do not work."

"Recent governments have worked too closely with the alcohol industry and have pursued policies of deregulation and liberalisation regarding alcohol control,"

In a nutshell, the more liberal our policies on alcohol, such as longer opening hours, wider availability through more retail outlets, and marketing campaigns aimed at the younger generation, the more alcohol is sold and the more taxes are collected, and with the weather about to improve as Winter becomes Spring and Summer, traditionally the Great British barbecue season, sales are sure to climb, adding a further burden to a National Health Service which is unable to cope with real illness as it, quite literally in a lot of cases, "fights" with the consequences of alcoholic excess's.

<span class=postbigbold>United Kingdom</span>

According to the Department of Health's own figures, there are over 160,000 alcohol related admissions into the UK's hospital system per year, which equates to an 'intoxicating' 1220 hospital admissions per day, as a result of alcohol and its abuse. If we were to take those 1220 admissions out of the equation this would free up emergency room staff who would then be able to deal with people who are sick, or who have had accidents NOT as a result of consuming alcohol.

Using more Department of Health figures from the the start of the new millenium as a datum point, shows the numbers admitted into hospital, including casualty departments has shown an unprecedented and catastrophic rise of 99% across all age groups. As well as a jump of over 40% in the amounts of under-18's who have received emergency room treatment for liver problems, injuries from fighting and brawling whilst under the influence of alcohol, and those needing to have their stomach pumped in a bid to save their lives from alcohol poisoning.

<span class=postbigbold>Death with no ifs, buts or maybe's</span>

Its a bleak picture which just gets worse as, according to the Office of National Statistics, since 1991, death's from alcohol related causes have doubled, from 4,144, to a massive 8,221in 2004 - funnily enough the same year cannabis was declassified.

According to Professor Ian Gilmore, who is president of the Royal College of Physicians, "It shows the current measures to stem alcohol-related health damage, and especially in our young people, aren’t working."

“That is why we have been looking for real evidence-based ways of reducing the burden of health damage for alcohol misuse, namely tackling price and availability.”

"But what does all this have to do with commercial cannabis operations in the UK and further afield," I hear you ask?

Cannabis is a realistic alternative for recreational intoxication and whilst a lot of people like to mix their intoxicants, taking cannabis and alcohol together, (or cocaine and heroin, prescription pills and alcohol etc), for a lot of people, cannabis is an alternative to alcohol and in fact a lot of people use cannabis to kick the alcoholic habit. Whilst this may be good for the alcoholics health, its also bad for the economy, as there are no taxes collected from cannabis use.

<span class=postbigbold>Europe</span>

To prove a point , in Holland a good number of cannabis cafe's have chosen to stop selling alcoholic beverages. No beer, no "shorts", and no trouble as a result.

Also in Holland the government has for the last 30 years, decriminalised a small amount of cannabis for personal use and whilst the anti-cannabis brigade fill the newspapers with column after column of negative cannabis rhetoric, the fact is Holland is at the bottom of the European league for drug addicts, but at the expense of the alcohol industry.

The Netherlands does not suffer the commercial cannabis boom which is experienced anywhere which enforces cannabis prohibition, which proves once and for all if you remove the prohibition, by decriminalising the personal consumption of cannabis (decriminalising, not legalising, as the UK Liberal Democrat Party supports in their manifesto), this allows people to grow their own cannabis, and negates the need for Vietnamese organised criminals and their hydroponic cannabis gardens, shutting them down almost overnight.

"But" say the experts, "cannabis may have an adverse effect on 1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000, causing, or leading to, cases of schizophrenia in those who are pre-disposed to the condition", and once upon a time I'm sure that would have been a valid enough reason to keep cannabis outlawed.

Yes it may, and it also may not. Today, in 2008, we can quite safely expect another 10,000 UK citizens to die as a direct result of consuming alcohol. We can realistically expect untold numbers of A&E staff to be both physically and verbally abused as they attempt to undertake their job on a daily basis, treating people tanked up on cheap fighting juice.

And we can expect the current cost of enforcing law against those who have drunk to much, to continue to climb sharply, as our towns and cities become no-go zones after 9pm every night.

Simply throwing more money at an age old problem isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. Especially when our hospitals can't cope as it is.

But removing the all out prohibition of cannabis, would make a significant difference to what has become the primary social issue in the UK.

Using the cannabis situation as a barrier to hide the true facts of alcohol and its effects on the Great British public has for decades, been a tactic used by government spin doctors, and regardless of what colour rosette they were wearing on election day.

But surely the time has come to wake up and smell the coffee.

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis less dangerous, less addictive than Starbucks lattes

<span class=postbigbold>Dr. Phillip Leveque has spent his life as a Combat Infantryman, Physician, Toxicologist and Pharmacologist.</span>

PR Canna Zine
March 12 2008

The argument for the use of raw cannabis as a medical drug has been rumbling on for literally decades, but successive governments have stuck by their guns, preferring to arrest and incarcerate legitimate cannabis using patients who may be suffering from a multitude of illnesses. Ailments which doctors in other countries such as Holland, the US, Germany, Belgium and Portugal to name only 5, are only to happy to sign a prescription allowing the patient to use cannabis to relieve their condition and symptoms.

According to a practicing physician based in Oregon in the US, a state which legalised cannabis use for medicinal purposes over 9 years ago, "marijuana is less dangerous and addictive than a latte from Starbucks". Which flies in the face of so called "medical experts" and their opinions here in the UK. So who's right and who's telling lies?

<span class=postbigbold>Home Office</span>

According to an e-mail the Canna Zine received from the Home Office:<blockquote>"The Government has no intention of legalising the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes. However, it recognises that there are people with chronic pain and debilitating illnesses, such as multiple sclerosis, who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication.

That is why the Government has said that it would seek Parliament’s agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine for the purposes of relieving pain. But this could not happen without product approval being granted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

In order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless, and until, it is satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means. Doctors must be confident about the products they prescribe. This position is supported by the British Medical Association."</blockquote>Yet Dr Philip Leveque, a long term proponent of cannabis for medical use says, "It has been nine years since medical marijuana was legalized and as of January 1st 2008 we have NOW 16,000 medical permit holders with 7.700 caregiver and growers and 1,700 more pending issuance permit cards."

"The Oregon Department of Human Services estimated that only about 500 patients would be eligible for the marijuana permits. (they are not prescriptions) If I remember correctly in the first year we registered one thousand marijuana patients and about 500 were mine. This was my only practice as I have a spinal cord injury which prevents me from running around a regular office.

The DHS State Medical Board, the powers that be couldn't figure out where all these patients were coming from but subsequent investigations by the U.S. government estimated that Oregon had about 300 thousand regular users. Most are self-treating for a variety of medical conditions."

The worst adverse side effect from a high dose of the pure medicinal agent hashish is maybe sleeping for 24 hours although the pure synthetic THC as prescription Marinol causes severe panic attacks in many people and they avoid it and often use the natural plant instead.

There are many disbelievers that marijuana is truly a good medicine through its been used beneficially for at least 5,000 years and never killed anyone.

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis. "How illegal" is it where you are?

PR Canna Zine
March 19, 2008

A 58 year old Canadian man who says his hemp oil cures cancer was sentenced Monday to eight days in jail after he pleaded guilty in court to trafficking marijuana.

The trafficking charge was brought about after a woman complained to police that Mr. Simpson had dropped off a syringe full of hemp oil at her home and asked her to give it to a relative who was using the drug for medicinal purposes.

The syringe, used only to transport the oil safely, was found to contain about five millilitres of marijuana oil, the equivalent of a teaspoon.

But Ricky Simpson won’t actually spend any time behind bars because Judge Carole Beaton said the time he spent in custody after his November arrest was "enough of a deterrent".

Have you been treated unfairly by the laws of your land regarding cannabis? Get in touch and let the Canna Zine help you tell your story to the world.

"If he and others do not get the message, after spending the equivalent of eight days in jail, that trafficking is against the law, I’m doubtful that adding 20 more days as suggested by the Crown would be any more of a deterrent," Judge Beaton said Monday as she sentenced Mr. Simpson on one charge of trafficking marijuana oil.

His arrest came as he was awaiting sentencing on earlier charges of producing marijuana and possessing less than three kilograms of tetrahydrocannabinol for the purpose of trafficking. Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the main active ingredient in marijuana.

A Nova Scotia Supreme Court jury found Mr. Simpson guilty of those charges in September and Justice Felix Cacchione sentenced him in February to a $2,000 (about £1000) fine and one day in jail, considered served by his appearance in court that day.

Although the £1000 fine was quite a lump to get fined, serving only a single day in jail for possessing under three kilo's of weed seems outrageous when compared to punishments meted out here in the UK, for not diss-similar crimes?

For instance it was back in November 07 that the Canna Zine reported on a medical cannabis grower, who was growing for the Bud Buddies medical cannabis group, and who was imprisoned for a year, for growing 250 cannabis plants at his home in Rugby, England.

When police raided the house of Roderick Cotton back in August 07, they found 250 cannabis plants and just a week before he appeared in court police found more plants at his home.

Cotton said he grew the plants at his Caldecott Street, Rugby address, for his own use, and also to supply sick and needy people through an unlicensed medical distribution organisation called Bud Buddies.

The police aknowledged Mr Cotton supplied medical patients and there was no suggestion of Mr Cotton "gaining financially" from his endeavours.

All of which begs the question, "Is this what British cannabis law is meant to "protect us" from"?

News reports this week have told of the Czech Republic reversing a sentence given to a woman who grew her own cannabis to relieve chronic foot pain and ulcers.

Apparently the woman used a piece of her vegetable patch to grow her cannabis plants, and was twice convicted by a local court, receiving a two year suspended prison sentence for her "crimes".

But a recent Superior Court convened specifically to look at this case, found in favour of the cannabis grower, and ordered the Prague Municipal Court to re-examine the cases, "nulling" the prison sentence.

The Superior Court has also advised that the Czech judiciary no longer brings charges against people who are using cannabis out of medical neccessity, essentially legalising medical marijuana in the republic.

In Antwerp, Belgium, a local cannabis social club (Trekt Uw Plant) has set about ensuring the laws pertaining to cannabis in Belgium, are adhered to strictly.

As with all EU states the laws are ambiguous and uncertain, leaving people who wish to grow or consume a small amount of "personal", in a tricky situation, not knowing whether or not they may legally grow their cannabis.

But in Belgium its quite legal to grow a single plant, or possess 3 grams or under of herbal (super skunk) cannabis.

In January 2005, a ministerial decree was signed by the Belgian Minister of Justice and the 5 main Attorneys General, in which the possession of max. 3 gram or 1 female cannabis plant was "declared a non-prosecutable offense."

In december 2006, Trekt Uw Plant presented the first collective cannabis plantation in Belgium, based on the principle of one member one plant. The legal authorities stopped this plantation, and they are currently involved in some legal wrangling to obtain the right to grow "collectively".

But it doesn't end there, as Joep, from Trekt Uw Plant explains. "Whilst we are as yet unable to put all of our plants in a single field, we are still allowed to help our members , who should be adult, living in Belgium, aware of the risks of cannabis use and who should have joined the organisation voluntarily, to grow their one cannabis plant."

"So we are calling on all those who wish to consume cannabis and are tired of beinng dependent on the illegal circuit to join us, on 3 May on Vrijdagmarkt in Antwerpen."

Has Belgium fallen to its knees in a drug fueled stupor as a result of allowing its citizens to possess and consume a small amount of cannabis?

Which surely must make us ask, "Why are the British Courts clogged up with punishing sometimes miniscule amounts of cannabis, which see's the "accused" walk away with a "community service order" or a £75 fine, when it may have cost the Exchequer 10's of thousands of pounds to bring about such a conviction?

At that cost it would be cheaper NOT to bring about a conviction and hire in master-builders to undertake the "community" work.

In America, city's and states are literally lining up to make small scale marijuana possession (up to an ounce or 28 grams), the lowest judicial priority. Lower even than littering or jaywalking.

During a period of time which sees public money tighter than ever, it makes huge economic sense, and will keep tens of thousands of people, who will use cannabis and regardless of its legal status, out of court, and out of jail.

So whats the hold up in the UK?

<hr class=postlist>
<span class=postbigbold>Have your say<span>

What do you think? Should cannabis be allowed for recreational/medical purposes here in the UK? If so why do you think its not allowed? Is it as the government says? A question of public health?

Or is there perhaps another, hidden agenda which the government are working to?

Sign up to the Canna Zine forums and have your say.

Buy Cannabis Seeds from the Canna Zine shop.

http://cannazine.co.uk

[palmspringsbum]

Up in smoke: Number of cannabis dealers being jailed is at ten-year low

This is London
Last updated at 09:22am on 24.03.08


The number of cannabis dealers being sent to jail is at an all time low, according to figures

The number of cannabis dealers being sent to jail is at a ten-year low.

Prosecutions have fallen almost a third, from 2,790 in 2003 to 1,994 in 2006 - the latest year for which figures are available.

The proportion of offenders given a prison sentence fell to 24 per cent, the lowest rate since 1996.

Cannabis was downgraded from a Class B drug to a Class C drug in 2003, meaning those caught with it for personal use are unlikely to be arrested.

The official figures - obtained by the Conservatives through Parliamentary questions - show that in 2003, prior to reclassification, 2,099 cannabis dealers were found guilty and 697 jailed.

But in 2006 only 1,158 were convicted and 279 jailed.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and are a major cause of crime.

"Not only is cannabis a major gateway to harder drugs but there is increasing evidence emerging showing the dehabilitative and demotivating effects it has on young people - especially in terms of mental illness.

"The Government is in denial about the harmful effects of cannabis. The decision to declassify cannabis has sent mixed messages.

"The decline in drugs offenders being jailed can only weaken efforts to deter its sale and use.

"We need a zero-tolerance approach to drugs, from our shores to our streets.

"That means establishing a dedicated border police force, reclassifying cannabis, prosecuting drug dealers, as well as rolling out abstinence-based rehabilitation and proper drug programmes in our prisons."

Gordon Brown is still weighing up whether to make cannabis a Class B drug again and ordered a review soon after becoming Prime Minister last summer.

Senior police officers, magistrates and medical experts have supported the move.

Experts say cannabis users increasingly risk serious mental health damage, particularly as highly potent "skunk" varieties become more popular.

The number of over-18s receiving treatment for cannabis misuse in England increased from 11,057 in 2004-05 to 16,685 in 2006-07.

A study by Unicef of 21 industrialised countries found that the UK is now third highest in terms of the proportion of 11-, 13-and 15-year-olds who admitted taking cannabis.

The figure stood at 35 per cent here, compared with 27 per cent in France, 18 per cent in Germany and 5 per cent in Sweden.

A fifth of robbery victims believe the offender was under the influence of drugs, according to the British Crime Survey.

[palmspringsbum]

Marijuana Madness: Paypal Cannabis Hypocrisy Continues Unabated

PR Canna Zine
March 24, 2008

It all happened within minutes and with no warning at all.

One moment the Canna Zine cannabis seed store was open for business, offering the worlds favourite cannabis seeds, a commodity which to this day, remains legal here in the UK, and accepting PayPal payments in return for free, worldwide shipping.

But in an instant we were shut down, as PayPal, an eBay company, had frozen our trading account and when we politely enquired as to why this was, bearing in mind cannabis seeds are legal in the UK, we were told it was as a result of PayPal company policy.

No negotiations were entered into, and for the next three months, no access was allowed to the Canna Zine PayPal account.

Under these circumstances I guess there's little we can do. If PayPal don't want to entertain the revenues from cannabis seed sales, what can we do about it right?

Meanwhile, sites across the web were offering links to illegal download websites and offering PayPal as a payment option so we drew this to the attentions of PayPal and their publicity company, fully expecting PayPal to wish to disassociate from software piracy as quickly as possible.

<span class=postbigbold>BSA</span>

No matter how you look at it, offering downloads of cracked software applications and games is against the law, with the British Software Association (BSA) threatening massive fines and prison sentences for those found guilty in trading in pirated software, also known as "warez", yet a quick google search for the term "Warez" will bring up literally hundreds of websites, from which you can download absolutely any piece of software, any movie or any PC/Console game.

The website in question here is a site called "Rapid Share" and heres how it works.

First of all you visit a bulletin board, (no names mentioned) and request whatever it is you are looking for, be that a game, or an application such as the latest copy of Windows Vista, Microsoft Office etc.

In this instance I chose to search out one of the latest PC games which is proving to be popular - Assassins Creed, and I immediately hit "pay dirt", being offered a link to Assassins Creed; The directors cut.

Worth £24.99 (around $50 dollars) on top games website Game.Com, the directors cut comes with a load of bonus material and is a must for any hardcore gamer.

Following the link I was offered a free download from Rapid Share, for which I had to wait my turn as a ticketing system is in operation. Dependent on how many downloads you wish to accept the time you wait is between 30 seconds and 3 minutes - just long enough to make a coffee.

But if you're life is simply so busy you can't wait three minutes you can pay the princely sum of 6.99 (euros) and download as much software as you want for 48 hours, and you guessed it, primary payment processor is the mighty PayPal!

It wasn't all that long ago that PayPal was a nickel and dime outfit, plying their trade on eBay. At this stage you could buy whatever you wanted and PayPal were happy to take your money, for crossbows, MACE spray, cannabis seeds, you name it.

These days however its a very different landscape which greets the online buyer, and if PayPal don't like what it is you're buying or selling, they will freeze your account with no warning, only telling you whats happened after the event.

It was March 2nd 2008 the Canna Zine drew PayPals attentions to the fact illegal software download sites were offering PayPal as a payment option.

Today, March 24th 2008, Rapid Share are STILL offering PayPal as a payment option for illegal software, yet you are still not allowed to buy cannabis seeds using PayPal, even though 12 states of the US have legalised medical marijuana, the Supreme Court in the Czech Republic has done the same, as has Germany.

Portugal, Belgium and Holland have created "policy guidelines" which allows their respective citizens to grow and possess a small amount of cannabis for personal use, and the third major political party here in the UK (Liberal Democrats), have said via their manifesto, that they will create similar policies should they be voted into power at the next general election, meaning the growing of cannabis in the UK, for personal or social supply, will be decriminalised.

But PayPal, as a member of the worlds financial industry, are playing judge & jury in deciding whether or not people should be allowed to buy cannabis seeds but in the same breath are condoning and encouraging software piracy by allowing their online payments service to be used for what is, no matter how you look at it, an illegal practice.

Hypocrisy at a corporate level?

Go figure!

<hr class=postrule>If you would like to let PayPal know exactly what you think of their practices you can let them know by contacting them via a number of methods. Thanks to popular anti-paypal website www.paypalsucks.com for the following information;<ul class=postlist><li> Their toll free number is (888) 221-1161 - personally verified by experience of the admin of this site.</li>

<li> Their NEW regular telephone number is: (650) 864-8000 - (verify)</li>

<li> An automated phone number is 402-935-7733 (verified by admin)</li>

<li> Another regular telephone number is: (402)935-2050 - (verify)

<li> 408 376 7400 fax: 408-376-7514 (Verified by Whois)</li>

<li> One of their fax numbers is: (402)537-5765 - (unverified, but probably good)</li>

<li> Another fax number is: (650)251-1101 - (verified via whois search)</li>

<li> The entire block of phone numbers from (402)935-2100 to (402)935-2299 seems to be all PayPal's. This list of PayPal phone numbers was created by a user of PayPalSucks.com.</li>

<li> PayPal UK is 08707 307 191 (UK national call rates apply) </li>

<li> PayPal UK FAX is 020 8605 3001. (verify by entering PayPal's registration number which is 226056.)</li>

<li> A Whois lookup on their domain shows: (This is supposed to be the legal address for process.)<blockquote>Registrant:
PayPal Inc. (PAYPAL2-DOM)
2211 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95131
US</blockquote></li><li> eBay Inc. hostmaster@ebay.com This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it<blockquote>2145 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
US
408 376 7400
fax: 408-376-7514</blockquote></li><li> PayPal UK shows:<blockquote>Hotham House
1 Heron House
Richmond Upon Thames
Surrey
TW9 1EJ
GB</blockquote></li><li> You can verify this info here. Just enter PayPal's registration number which is 226056.</li></ul>Buy cannabis seeds from the Canna Zine store and pay securely using your credit card, safe in the knowledge PayPal won't be getting a slice of your hard earned.

[palmspringsbum]

Superskunk me: What happened when one woman smoked dope daily for a month for a BBC documentary


<table class=posttable align=right width=186><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/taylor_nicky.jpg alt="Nicky Taylor"></td></tr></table>The Daily Mail
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH
Last updated at 00:10am on 26th March 2008

Just a few puffs on a rolled-up cigarette containing "skunk" - a strong form of cannabis - was all it took to strip Nicky Taylor of all her capabilities and to induce a terrifying combination of paranoia, fear and anxiety.

As the drug took effect, she was rendered incapable of doing anything save look anxiously around her and try to calm her trembling hands.

But Nicky is not just another of the millions of Britons who smoke cannabis regularly. She chose to experiment with the drug as part of a BBC documentary in which she investigated just how damaging smoking different forms of the drug can be - with herself as a guinea pig.

"I felt absolutely terrified," recalls Nicky, a divorced mother-of-three, thinking back to her first experience just over a month ago.

"Paranoia set in, and I felt as if I was having a panic attack. At one point, I was simply too frightened to get out of my chair.

"I had a feeling the drug had unlocked some sort of paranoia in my head that would never go away again - I suddenly felt everyone hated me. Without doubt, that was one of the worst moments of my life."

It has been well over 20 years since Nicky first smoked cannabis, which she tried as a student.

But for this investigation she has spent the past month in Amsterdam, where she smoked around a joint of cannabis - which two years ago was downgraded from a class B to a class C drug in Britain - every day.

Controversially, she also allowed herself to be injected with pure THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in cannabis.

Her aim was to discover the true effect cannabis had on her mind and body - and conversely on the millions of Britons who now smoke it regularly.

While some will question Nicky's wisdom in committing herself to such an experiment when she is a mother of three young children, there is little doubt that her experiences are both enlightening and cautionary to anyone who might think cannabis is harmless.

At one point during her investigation, scientific tests proved that, thanks to the drug, she had developed a level of psychosis well above that seen in individuals with schizophrenia.

It is estimated that 15 million people in the UK have tried cannabis, and up to 5 million smoke it on a regular basis.

In the UK, cannabis use has increased 1,000 per cent since the Seventies, and according to a recent Unicef report, the UK has the third highest rate of young people smoking cannabis in the Western world.

The bright lights of Amsterdam: Nicky Taylor worked in a coffee shop in the city where cannabis is legal

Yet there is now considerable medical evidence that cannabis causes psychosis. It has also been linked to schizophrenia, and is believed to be behind a string of violent murders.

Even mild short-term use can result in depression and sleep disturbances.

"As a mother, I wanted to find out what is in store for my children if they ever try cannabis," says Nicky, who lives in Kidderminster with her children Freya, nine, Millie, eight, and Harry, six.

"Also, there is no doubt that cannabis has got stronger - over the past few years, home-grown cannabis has been genetically altered so that it contains 10 to 15 per cent THC, whereas naturally-grown cannabis contains only 3 to 5 per cent.

"I wanted to know whether there is any truth to the claim made by dope smokers that you can smoke cannabis and carry on with life as normal. And I wanted to find out if the drug really does drive you into madness."

To conduct her investigation, Nicky spent a month in Amsterdam, working part-time at a coffee shop that sells the drug.

Although she would not be allowed to smoke during her shift, she lit up every day after work.

"The first time I smoked cannabis in Amsterdam it contained one of the strongest forms of 'skunk' on sale, and the result was absolutely horrendous," says Nicky.

"At that moment, I felt like pulling the plug on the investigation, packing my bags and heading home to my children, who'd stayed in the UK with my mother. I ended up having a row with my cameraman, too, because I was so irrational and paranoid.

"It all felt a world away from the feeling of harmless giddiness I'd remembered having from smoking it a little as a student. It hit me that I could be risking my sanity - and it didn't feel worth it."

However, waking the next morning, Nicky's paranoia had dissipated and she decided to carry on. That is not to say she didn't feel any physical and mental after-effects of the drug.

"Although the paranoia had gone, I was left dazed and my mind seemed to be operating much more slowly than it usually does," says Nicky. "I had no motivation and just wanted to go back to bed. I had no idea how anyone could get stoned at night and then function properly the next day."

Over the following week, Nicky smoked different varieties of cannabis on a daily basis. While she did not encounter the same level of paranoia again, her ability to work was nonetheless compromised by the drug's effects.

"At one point, I went to interview the man who runs Amsterdam's hemp museum after smoking cannabis," says Nicky. "I wanted to appear professional - as any reporter from the BBC would. But this proved to be next to impossible. I was giggly and could hardly keep my mind on what he was saying.

"Embarrassingly, my attention suddenly wandered to a pile of guinea pig bedding which was sitting in the corner of his office, clearly intended for someone's pet.

"I rushed over to it and kept picking it up. I felt as if I'd just discovered the Holy Grail, but the poor man clearly thought I was incredibly odd. He was obviously uncomfortable in my presence, and I was clearly unable to be professional while on the drug."

To find out how much her concentration had been compromised, Nicky set herself the task of assembling a flat pack cabinet, first free from and then under the influence of cannabis.

Without having smoked the drug, she found the job straightforward. While stoned however, it was a different matter.

"I took only two puffs of cannabis, but was totally hopeless when it came to assembling the cabinet," she says. I felt so spaced out that I ended up passing out on the sofa with the cabinet still in bits around me. The drug totally destroyed my ability to think."

Over the course of the four-week investigation, this "mental oblivion", as Nicky describes it, was to become a familiar feeling.

On a daily basis, depending on the strength of cannabis she had smoked, she either spiralled into depression and paranoia or simply passed out and had to go to bed.

"I noticed very quickly that the stronger the variety of cannabis, the more paranoia and depression I experienced," she says.

"Some nights, particularly after smoking 'skunk', which is high in THC, I couldn't sleep at all and would be pacing my room, becoming more and more paranoid and thinking everyone I'd met at the cafe, as well as the BBC crew, was talking about me.

"But even the weaker varieties rendered me completely useless. I'd often go to bed at 8pm and be totally crashed out until morning. I felt constantly groggy and unmotivated, I couldn't wake up in the mornings and I'd find myself longing to go back to bed all day.

"My motivation was reduced to zero and I felt totally slowed down.

"I'm a very active person, with a mind that normally works at a million miles an hour. I thrive on multi-tasking and getting through my daily 'To do' lists. Yet, with cannabis in my life, I reached the end of every day feeling frustrated that I'd achieved so little.

"By the end of a month of smoking cannabis every day, I felt as if my mind had been turned into treacle and nothing made much sense to me any more.

"Even basic things like trying to send emails or talk to people on the phone became a real effort of will and brain power. There is no way I could carry on with the life I lead now, looking after my children, at the same time as smoking cannabis, even if it was just occasionally."

If Nicky's mind seemed to be getting smaller, her waistline was expanding. Over the course of her investigation, she gained half a stone, due to the drug's tendency to bring on cravings for junk food.

"Cannabis triggers a chemical surge in the brain which stimulates the appetite, and in particular makes you crave sweet and salty snacks while you are stoned," says Nicky.

"I could easily get through a couple of packets of biscuits and a huge bag of crisps, and the result was I quickly gained weight.

"I usually go running every day, but the effect of the drug on my lungs meant this was no longer possible either, because cannabis compromises lung function three times as much as ordinary cigarettes.

"And I not only felt groggy - I looked groggy, too. I woke up every morning with puffy eyes and sallow skin. It was as though the drug had destroyed my ability to refresh my body as well as my mind."

Once back in the UK, Nicky visited the Institute of Psychiatry, where, for the final stage of her investigation, she took part in a unique experiment.

Scientists there are interested in the effect of the ratio between the drug's two main components - THC and cannabanoid - and the levels of psychosis induced in the user, and are undertaking trials in which volunteers are injected with both pure THC and THC mixed with cannabanoid.

Nicky agreed to do this, too, and following each injection, she underwent a series of psychological tests designed to assess her state of mind.

Even though injecting the drug means it reaches the bloodstream more quickly than if it's smoked, the results were shocking.

"With the mixture of THC and cannabanoid - which is roughly equivalent to the sort of 'grass' people smoked in the Sixties, I felt very giggly and silly," says Nicky.

"I felt groggy afterwards and wouldn't want to feel that way all the time, but there wasn't anything too troubling about the experience.

"The psychological tests indicated that while I was flippant and had lost any sense of care and responsibility, I had not become psychotic."

However, Nicky's experience with pure THC - more akin to the strong "skunk" favoured by cannabis users today - was far more sinister.

Within minutes of receiving the injection, she was overcome by morbid thoughts.

"I was suddenly gripped by the idea that the scientists conducting the experiment were characters from a horror film who were somehow out to get me," she says.

"I later found myself fantasising about jumping out of a window and crawling away somewhere that I would never be found. I was increasingly agitated and convinced they were trying to trick me in everything they said to me."

Most alarmingly, she also took a test, in the form of a series of questions about her state of mind, in which a score of four points and above indicates significant psychosis of the level seen in people with schizophrenia - she scored 14.

"I couldn't believe it when I saw my result - it was terrifying to think I was experiencing greater psychosis than someone with schizophrenia," says Nicky.

"It proved without doubt that the drug was playing havoc with my mind, and inducing a psychotic state that I would never have reached without it.

"I was reassured that once the effect of the drug had worn off after a few hours, I would return to normal, but it might be a different case for individuals with a family history of mental illness."

With her investigation now behind her, Nicky is adamant that she will never touch cannabis again. Thankfully, she appears not to have experienced any long-term effects from using the drug.

"I do feel extremely worried for my children's future and will certainly do all I can to ensure that they stay away from the drug," says Nicky.

"Until now, I hadn't really considered cannabis had that much more effect than a bottle of wine might do, but now I know that's far from the truth.

"The drug took me to some dark and frightening places, to which I hope I never return."

• Nicky's investigation: Should I Smoke Dope? can be seen in full on BBC3 tonight at 10pm.

[palmspringsbum]

Home Office U-turn on cannabis as link to mental illness deepens

The Daily Mail
By STEVE DOUGHTY
26th March 2008

Youngsters are to be given a stronger warning on the dangers of cannabis following a U-turn in the Home Office.

It is to scrap guidance that cannabis should be avoided by those who already suffer mental health problems.

Instead, young people will be warned that "anyone who uses cannabis could be doing so at a risk to their mental health".

The climbdown over the content of the Government's controversial drugs advice website FRANK was disclosed by Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker.

Only last month Mr Coaker told MPs that he "did not accept" that the guidance could lead young people into believing cannabis is safe if they have no existing mental health problems.

The U-turn comes in advance of a key report next month on whether cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B illegal drug.

The Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will tell the Government whether its experts believe the downgrading of cannabis in January 2004 should be reversed.

Since then those caught with the drug have been unlikely to be arrested.

Senior medical experts have given evidence to the ACMD that the official attitude to the dangers of cannabis has been "complacent".

Professor Louis Appleby, national director for mental health, told the ACMD in February that "the evidence is pointing towards cannabis as a cause of severe mental illness".

Mr Coaker's revision of Government advice was disclosed to Tory MP Graham Brady, who is chairman of the All-Party Group on Cannabis and Children.

The Frank website currently advises youngsters of "increasing evidence of a link between cannabis and mental health problems such as schizophrenia.

"If you've a history of mental health problems, depression, or are experiencing paranoia, then taking this drug is not a good idea," it adds.

Mr Coaker has now written to Mr Brady: "I have looked into the advice being provided by FRANK and want to reassure you that our warnings about cannabis are not confined to saying there is only a risk if you have a predisposition to a mental health problem.

"After reviewing the advice on the website, I have asked the Department of Health (which manages the FRANK website) to review the current advice given on the site with a view of making it clear that anyone who uses cannabis could be doing so at a risk to their mental health."

Last night Mr Brady said: "I am delighted and I hope this shows a new readiness to listen.

"There is mounting evidence about the link between cannabis and mental health problems and we need to make sure that everyone knows about it.

"It is particularly important we keep up the pressure on the Government in advance of the decision over the reclassification of cannabis which is due within the next few weeks."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This is another example of the chaos and confusion that embodies this Government's policy on drugs.

"First their decision to reclassify cannabis sends out the message the drug is OK then their own guidance does the same. Yet another mixed message.

"No wonder the number of under-18s receiving treatment for cannabis has increased 16 per cent since last year."

The FRANK website has been heavily criticised since it was launched five years ago saying that some regarded drugs as an "essential" part of party celebrations and advising cocaine users to show "moderation".

Mary Brett of Europe Against Drugs said: "FRANK is misleading, libertarian and far too soft.

"The evidence about cannabis has been around for years. If the Government is beginning to take notice, that is very good news."

[palmspringsbum]

The families torn apart by teenage skunk epidemic

<span class=postbold>It is the end of a taboo: articulate, middle-class parents are speaking out about the nightmare of seeing their children spiral into drug abuse and, all too often, mental illness. Many blame themselves for staying silent, assuming that modern strains of cannabis were little different from the pot that baby boomers smoked at college. The reality is very different</span>

Tracy McVeigh, chief reporter
The Observer, Sunday 15 March 2009


In the front room of a stucco-fronted three-bedroom home in Chiswick, a deeply middle-class suburb in comfortable west London, Susanne apologises for the smell of the recently walked dog, but it is the sweetly oppressive stink of skunk cannabis that lingers most strongly among the plumped-up Ikea cushions.

"It does reek," said the 52-year-old mother-of-two, sniffing. "That bloody boy has been smoking that stuff down here when I've been out with the bloody dog." She puts her head in her hands. "The smell gives me such a headache."

John and Susanne were happy to talk about life with a son who regularly uses cannabis, but changed their minds about giving their real names or occupations after watching the fallout that has engulfed author Julie Myerson, whose estrangement from her cannabis-smoking son Jake was deepened when she wrote a book about his behaviour that culminated in him being thrown out of the family home.

The couple's own 17-year-old son, also called Jake, insists on the use of his name. "I'm not ashamed, you know. I have looked it all up and read a lot of research and I am quite well informed," he said. "Actually, all my friends are; it's the so-called adults who have forgotten that they did a bit of this themselves when they were young – a long time ago," he added with a sarcastic grin at his mother.

"He reads what he wants to read, hippy websites mostly," said his mother, who has a whole folder of clipped-out newspaper articles and internet printouts full of research and opinion on cannabis that she regularly tries to get Jake to read. It sounds like a well rehearsed exchange between the pair.

"We certainly have had these discussions again and again for two years. Paradoxically, it's when he's stoned that he actually engages," she said.

His parents had thought it was the au pair who was smoking in the house when Jake began using cannabis at the age of 15. "We thought we were ready for a bit of pot," said John. "Our daughter came back from a party and was really ill from it when she was 15 and we teased her about it – of course, she never touched it again. I smoked at university, we all did, and always envisaged how I'd tackle it chummily with my kids, play the cool dad. God, how stupid. This stuff is not the same ballgame."

Then came the school truancy and the stealing. "All for a drug they try to tell us isn't addictive," said Susanne. "His life is disintegrating before our eyes."

Debra Bell will use her real name. From south London, her son William is now 21 and also through the worst of what she believes was a skunk addiction that turned a sporty public schoolboy into a violent, aggressive thief.

"We knew about cannabis, but nothing about skunk. It was all such a shock," she said.

"We were undermined as parents, by the government downgrading it, by doctors not taking it seriously. William could just shrug his shoulders and say everybody at school was doing it, and it was pretty obvious in the months that followed that they were.

"My husband is a barrister and he started to see that this was a drug addiction. He began to wash his hands of him, but this was my beautiful boy… we fell out a lot over it. Guy's stance was tough and eventually we did throw him out of the house and I didn't see him for a year. It was a nightmare."

All her efforts to get help foundered. "The professionals were just out of date in their understanding. We felt deeply ashamed that we couldn't get a good outcome for our son, as he was sliding more and more into this nightmare."

Now reconciled with William, Bell set up her own website in the end and found a flood of other families desperate for such a helpline. "Suddenly we were just hearing all these carbon-copy stories, thousands. It is such a hidden subject, but such a huge phenomenon. No respect for class or creed or colour. I think we have betrayed our children through our ignorance. Our generation smoked, but here and there. Everybody did it – but children didn't smoke it, children whose brains were still developing."

Whether or not there is a new middle-class phenomenon of teenagers – mostly boys but also some girls – who are at best losing great swaths of their youth and at worst endangering their mental health to the mind-numbing effects of skunk is at the moment only anecdotal. But certainly there is a huge rise in the numbers of articulate parents who are prepared to speak out about their experiences.

Strong cannabis is nothing new: its hallucinogenic effects were recorded at the beginning of civilisation and echoed in literature in stories of writers from Alexandre Dumas to Paul Bowles. But many believe that the new, hydroponically grown strain is a thoroughly modern threat to a generation who see traditionally "addictive" drugs like heroin and crack as "dirty", and cannabis as somehow the healthy herb despite its genetically modified new form.

In the foreword to a 1972 report to US President Richard Nixon and Congress of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, the commission's chairman wrote: "Seldom in the nation's history has there been a phenomenon more divisive, more misunderstood, more fraught with impact on family, personal, and community relationships than the marihuana phenomenon."

As the commission noted more than 30 years ago, the concept of cannabis dependency or addiction and its impact on health and psychology was highly prone to misunderstanding and disagreement, something that seems to be the same today.

Over decades, successive government committees, books, research papers, medical studies and experts have taken robust views, opposing views and speculative ones. In the US at the moment there is a movement to use cannabis to treat hyperactive primary age children, while other experts claim it has links to schizophrenia, depression and even testicular cancer.

"What is clear is that nothing is clear," said Harry Shapiro, the director of communications at the charity Drugscope.

"There are problems associated with cannabis and nobody has ever denied that. A lot of our members who are active in young people's drug treatment services or psychiatry will of course only be seeing the worst-case scenarios. If a million or so people are using cannabis in the country, then obviously that is not the normal experience. An issue that is coming up now is this idea that cannabis is 20 or 50 times stronger than it used to be, but the forensic data makes it clear that, as more and more cannabis is grown in this country, that will be producing a stronger kind of cannabis, about twice the strength, maybe, of what you would expect from the resin of the 1970s. But you can't say that that means it is twice the danger," he said.

Shapiro stresses that vulnerable groups or those, especially young men, with a pre-existing tendency to mental health problems, are more likely to get into difficulty with cannabis.

"But for a lot of young boys it is about wasting time. And wasting time is the biggest threat they'll face. Smoke it regularly for a couple of years and you're doing nothing else. So while obviously the mental health issues we know about are at the more dramatic end of things, there are other issues and we have to be careful and look out for the people likely to get into the most serious problems, who are those self-medicating against problems in the family, at school, with their friends." He feels there are myths around skunk and that strong cannabis is nothing new. "Even in the 1960s we had Nepalese temple balls and Thai sticks, the connoisseurs' cannabis if you like."

General statistics on drug use show the heroin-using population is ageing: it is not attracting new users. But cheap alcohol and cannabis are more attractive as patterns of drug use shift. "At the moment, skunk is supplied by gangs growing it in houses and flats, and the police are getting good at shutting those down. There is evidence there is a growing demand for imported cannabis again, so if that goes on you might just see another shift away from it."

Many people believe that waiting for change is not enough and legislation is needed to deal with the problem. Helen Sello is in her mid-50s and her son is schizophrenic. "I'm not sure which one thing caused the other," she said. "Did the schizophrenia come from the drug or was he self-medicating? It's not really a useful thing to do if you have any high risk toward mental illness, and who knows who can pick and choose?

"I thought it was perfectly harmless. I thought I'd prefer him to do that more than getting drunk. I support legalisation, not because I think young people take a great deal of notice of the law – they don't – but because I think that with legalisation comes control. Give people more information: vulnerable young people need to know what this drug can do. If anything makes me really angry it is that this is such a polarised debate, an immature debate. It's either that cannabis is good or it's bad."

For Tory MP Charles Walker, the chair of the all-party parliamentary committee looking at children and cannabis, the damage that has been done both by the historical and generational tolerance of cannabis and by the government's out-of-date attitudes has meant that a seriously dangerous drug is not recognised as such.

"I have met and spoken to so many families who have been devastated – I mean devastated – by this drug," he said. "It is clearly highly addictive both psychically and psychologically and the damage is terrible: high-achieving children turning into shadows of their former selves and creating widespread misery.

"I think there is a historical legacy, which is why cannabis has been so downgraded by people in their 40s and 50s like me who don't understand that we are facing a different drug from the one everyone smoked in their youth. I wish we could change its name from cannabis to emphasise that.

"It's a hallucinogenic drug and it's having a far greater effect on the teenage mind, whose chemical make-up is so delicate. I think we need a new awareness. Better education in schools, far less tolerance from society. Let's intervene earlier and let's forget the historical legacy of our own experiences because they are obsolete. Thank God, as a parent myself, that I found out about this in order to talk to my own children before they reach their teenage years."

But not everyone is convinced we are sitting on an enormous generational time bomb. Author Anthony Horowitz attacked what he called the "Myerson angst" of fearful parenting. The author of the boy spy Alex Ryder books has two teenage sons. "Frankly, we need to lighten up a bit. We need a little less angst and fear about teenage boys – after all, we have to remember they grow up to be us."

He said he could not be a children's writer if he didn't have a belief in the essentially positive nature of young people. "The constant demonising of them by press and government and now by parents is a drip-drip of venom that will only erode their faith in themselves."

A 60-year-old mother from Plymouth agrees with not giving up on the child. Her son is now 24 and lives in Wales. He began smoking cannabis on a family camping holiday at the age of 15. "He doesn't like to come back to Plymouth now, because many of his old friends are still in their bedrooms, smoking dope. It's a nonsense that this is not an addictive drug, a nonsense. I think he felt very guilty and knew he was throwing these precious years down the drain.

"I pinned up articles in his bedroom, talked to him and talked to him. It was a four-year nightmare: he stole his sisters' pocket money, he frightened his sisters and he would kick their doors in to get money or in rage. I had thought at first 'OK, he's a 15-year-old boy, he's going to dabble' – I was so innocent at first."

But she believes she was right to wait it out until her son got fed up of wasting his life. "Don't throw them out," she said. "Just love them, give them nice food, make sure they know you are there for them. Never give up on them and they'll come back to you."

<span class=postbold>Cannabis: a history</span>
<ul class=postlist>
<li>Cannabis has been used for more than 4,000 years, including for medicinal purposes in Indian, Chinese and middle eastern civilisations. In China, it has been used to treat such conditions as malaria, constipation and rheumatism.</li>
<li>Doctors in the west began to take an interest in its medicinal use in the middle of the 19th century. Queen Victoria was prescribed cannabis by her doctor to relieve period pain.</li>
<li>The drug was outlawed in the United Kingdom in 1928, following an international drugs conference in Geneva, at which an Egyptian delegate claimed that it was a threat to society and as dangerous as opium.</li>
<li>Recreational use in the UK began in the 1950s as migrants from the Caribbean arrived. It soared in popularity during the "flower power" years in the 1960s.</li>
<li>A Home Office investigation in 1968 concluded: "There is no evidence that this activity is causing violent crime or aggression, anti-social behaviour, or is producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis requiring medical treatment."</li>
<li>Advanced cultivation techniques have led to an increase in potency over the past 20 years. Average levels of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive ingredient) in marijuana sold in America rose from 3.5% in 1988 to 8.5% in 2006. "Skunk" is the most potent strain and now dominates the UK market, according to Home Office research.</li>
</ul>
<small>
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

BBC News UK | 30 Oct 09


The UK's chief drugs adviser has been sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, after criticising government policies.

Professor David Nutt, head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, criticised the decision to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C.

He accused ministers of devaluing and distorting evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised.

The home secretary said he had "lost confidence" in his advice and asked him to step down.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is the UK's official drugs advisory body.

Following his sacking, Prof Nutt told the BBC he stood by his claim that cannabis should not be a Class B drug, based on its effects.

He described his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government".

And he denied that he had been trying to undermine the government's policies on drugs.

"I am disappointed because, to be honest, all I was trying to do was help. I wasn't challenging the government," said the former adviser.

"We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public."

Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to "mislead" the public about the effects of drugs in order to convey a moral "message" on the government's behalf.

Earlier this week Prof Nutt used a lecture at King's College, London, to attack what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

The professor said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

Phil Willis MP, chairman of the science and technology select committee, said he would write to the home secretary to ask for clarification as to why Prof David Nutt had been sacked "at a time when independent scientific advice to government is essential".

"It is disturbing if an independent scientist should be removed for reporting sound scientific advice," he said.

Public concern over the links between high-strength cannabis, known as skunk, and mental illness led the government to reclassify cannabis to Class B last year.

In the past, Prof Nutt has also claimed that taking ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse.

In a letter, the home secretary wrote: "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD.

"I would therefore ask you to step down from the Council with immediate effect."

In his reply, Prof Nutt said he was "disappointed" by the sentiments expressed by Mr Johnson.

He added: "Whilst I accept that there is a distinction between scientific advice and government policy there is clearly a degree of overlap.

"If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate at this interface then you devalue their contribution to policy making and undermine a major source of carefully considered and evidence-based advice."

<span class="postbold">'Disgraceful' decision</span>

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the sacking had been "an inevitable decision" after Prof Nutt's "latest ill-judged contribution to the debate".

But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the decision to sack the adviser had been "disgraceful".

"What is the point of having independent scientific advice if as soon as you get some advice that you don't like, you sack the person who has given it to you?" he said.

Mr Huhne said if the government did not want to take expert scientific advice, it might as well have "a committee of tabloid newspaper editors to advise on drugs policy".

Similarly, Claudia Rubin from Release - a national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law - said the expert should not have been penalised.

<span class="postbold">Cannabis reclassification</span>

"It's a real shame and a real indictment of the government's refusal to take any proper advice on this subject," she said.

And Prof Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the government could not expect experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected.

"I worry that the dismissal of Prof Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the government in the future," he said.

Possession of Class B drugs carries a maximum sentence of five years in jail while possession of Class C drugs carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.

In 2004, then Home Secretary David Blunkett had approved the reclassification of cannabis from Class B - which it had been since 1971 - to Class C.

But in 2008, Jacqui Smith announced that she would reverse the 2004 decision and put cannabis back into category B.

The decision was taken despite official advisers recommending against the change.

Ministers said they wanted to make the move as a precautionary measure.

[palmspringsbum]

Six drugs service scientists may resign over sacking of chairman

<span class="postbigbold">Growing fury at 'disgraceful' decision that undermines relations between politicians and scientists</span>

By Danny Brierley | The Independent
Sunday, 1 November 2009


Leading members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are expected to resign over the sacking of its chairman, leaving the service in disarray, one of its leading scientists has warned.

Dr Les King, a respected chemist and former head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit in the Forensic Science Service, said that anger over the "disgraceful" decision by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to remove Professor David Nutt could lead to a meltdown in the 40-year-old organisation.

He claimed that as many as six of its scientists will resign from the independent organisation, putting further pressure on the Government over its handling of the affair. Dr King cautioned that the Government's whole drugs programme could be at risk.

Fuelling the sense of anger in the scientific community over the sacking, Lord Drayson, the Science minister, expressed concern that he had not been informed of the decision.

Professor Nutt said last night that his own children may have tried drugs. "I'm sure my children have tried drugs. In fact, some have told me they have," he told The Mail on Sunday.

The row has wider ramifications for the relationship between politicians and scientists, many of whom are concerned at Mr Johnson's reaction to Professor Nutt's comments. Dr King said: "Academics, medics and others are going to ask themselves if they want to serve on these agencies without payment, on their own time and expense, when the advice that they produce is routinely ignored."

To the anger of scientists, Mr Johnson accused Professor Nutt of "lobbying for a change in policy".

Professor Nutt's dismissal, a first for a chairman of the ACMD, came days after he expressed dismay at the Prime Minister's insistence that cannabis remain a class B drug, and nine months after he said that there was little difference in the dangers of horse riding and taking ecstasy.

Dr King added: "What we say is objective and evidence-based. Sometimes people do not want to hear that. The Government has a statutory obligation to consult the council before it makes any changes to the classification of drugs – the Misuse of Drugs Act is clear about that. If significant figures resign, it cannot function any more, and without a change to the Act of Parliament the Government cannot make any changes." Members of the council, which meets twice a year, are due to gather again on 10 November, when discussions will be dominated by Professor Nutt's sacking. But the resignations are likely to occur sooner, said Dr King.

Following the sacking, there are now 30 members of the council, fewer than half of whom are scientists. The Home Office has refused to comment on the possibility of resignations, but Lord Drayson told followers of his Twitter account that he was "looking into" the sacking after hearing the news while in Japan. The minister, who is likely to have to deal with the anger of scientists, later posted a message saying he would be "asking why I wasn't informed".

The shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, has backed Professor Nutt's sacking. Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said: "The sacking was utterly disgraceful and a serious mistake. It has much wider implications, not just for the ACMD but for any independent scientific advisory service trying to give a sensible assessment of evidence to policy-makers. It is absolutely essential that the Government takes impartial, scientific advice. You cannot question David Nutt's credentials; if anyone knows the difference between facts and opinions, it is him."

Rudi Fortson, a leading criminal barrister and author who specialises in drug cases, said: "If the scientists were to resign en masse a vacuum would be left and that would be a matter of some concern." In an open letter to Mr Johnson, Professor Peter Tyrer, the head of the Centre for Mental Health and editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry, said Professor Nutt's scientific credentials were "impeccable".

Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London, accused Mr Johnson of undermining scientific research. He said: "I'm shocked and dismayed that [he] appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion."

[palmspringsbum]

David Nutt: my views on drugs classification

David Nutt
The Guardian | 3 Nov 09

<span class="postbigbold">David Nutt, the government's former chief drugs adviser, on how he formulated his controversial views on drugs</span>


Formulating policy in relation to drugs is obviously quite a difficult thing to do. I comment on it, as I always have, from the perspective of a psychiatrist who is interested in drugs and drugs and the brain.

We have a range of expertise on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); we're very strong in terms of chemistry and pharmacology, and psychology; and we have a definite knowledge, interest and responsibility to look at social harms as well. We provide one arm of the policy-formulating perspective. In addition, there are a number of other agencies, organisations and individuals who contribute to policy formation.

There are also international partners – we have signed up to international treaties – which determine that, in essence, the UK follows United Nations policy on drugs. This can be quite a tough constraining influence on how countries regulate drugs (although some countries, such as the Netherlands, have managed to be more flexible, even though they still sign up to the international conventions).

Then, of course, there are other factors feeding into political decisions about drugs: what the general public thinks (or is thought to think); and then there's the media. In recent years, the whole process of determining drug classification has become quite complex and highly politicised.

<span class="postbold">Cannabis – a potent problem</span>

I am going to focus on cannabis because it is the only drug that has been downgraded in the history of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, an interesting point in itself. The issues relating to cannabis pose a challenge to whether the act is working as it was originally intended.

The ACMD was requested by the home secretary in 2007 to review the status of cannabis because: "Though statistics show that cannabis use has fallen significantly, there is real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use, in particular the use of stronger forms of the drug, commonly known as skunk."

So there was a skunk scare. Cannabis had gone from class B to C, but, supposedly, skunk use had been increasing and it was getting stronger, so we were asked to review whether the decision to go from B to C was still appropriate. In our report we came to several conclusions:

• Cannabis is a harmful drug and there are concerns about the widespread use of cannabis amongst young people.

• A concerted public health response is required to drastically reduce its use.

• Current evidence suggests a probable, but weak, causal link between psychotic illness and cannabis use.

• The harms caused by cannabis are not considered to be as serious as drugs in class B and therefore it should remain a class C drug.

There has been a lot of commentary and some research as to whether cannabis is associated with schizophrenia, and the results are really quite difficult to interpret. What we can say is that cannabis use is associated with an increased experience of psychotic disorders. That is quite a complicated thing to disentangle because, of course, the reason people take cannabis is that it produces a change in their mental state. These changes are akin to being psychotic – they include distortions of perception, especially in visual and auditory perception, as well as in the way one thinks. So it can be quite hard to know whether, when you analyse the incidence of psychotic disorders with cannabis, you are simply looking at the acute effects of cannabis, as opposed to some consequence of cannabis use.

If we look on the generous side there is a likelihood that taking cannabis, particularly if you use a lot of it, will make you more prone to having psychotic experiences. That includes schizophrenia, but schizophrenia is a relatively rare condition so it's very hard to be sure about its causation. The analysis we came up with was that smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers. To put that figure in proportion, you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don't.

There is a relatively small risk for smoking cannabis and psychotic illness compared with quite a substantial risk for smoking tobacco and lung cancer.

The other paradox is that schizophrenia seems to be disappearing (from the general population) even though cannabis use has increased markedly in the last 30 years. When we were reviewing the general practice research database in the UK from the University of Keele, research consistently and clearly showed that psychosis and schizophrenia are still on the decline. So, even though skunk has been around now for 10 years, there has been no upswing in schizophrenia. In fact, where people have looked, they haven't found any evidence linking cannabis use in a population and schizophrenia.

<span class="postbold">Media bias</span>

I want to move on now to look at how people gather information about drugs and the challenges of communicating the best evidence relating to drug harms to the public. This is difficult in the face of what you might call a peculiar media imbalance in relation to drugs. The following data illustrates a remarkable finding. It derives from the PhD of a Scottish graduate, Alasdair JM Forsyth, who looked at every single newspaper report of drug deaths in Scotland from 1990 to 1999 and compared them with the coroners' data.

Over the decade, there were 2,255 drug deaths, of which the Scottish newspapers reported 546. For aspirin, only one in every 265 deaths were reported. For morphine, one in 72 deaths were reported, indicating that editors were not interested in this opiate. They were more interested in heroin, where one in five deaths were reported, and methadone, where one in 16 deaths were reported.

They were also more interested in stimulants. With amphetamines, deaths are relatively rare at 36, but one in three were reported; for cocaine it was one in eight. Amazingly, almost every single ecstasy death – that is, 26 out of 28 of those where ecstasy was named as a possible contributory factor – was reported. So there's a peculiar imbalance in terms of reporting that is clearly inappropriate in relation to the relative harms of ecstasy compared with other drugs. The reporting gives the impression that ecstasy is a much more dangerous drug than it is. This is one of the reasons I wrote the article about horse riding that caused such extreme media reactions earlier this year. The other thing you'll notice is that there is a drug missing, and that's cannabis. Also missing is alcohol, which will have killed a similar number – 2,000-3,000 people – in Scotland over that time, maybe more. Of course, cannabis wouldn't have killed anyone because it doesn't kill. And that's one of the reasons why we thought cannabis should be class C, because you cannot die of cannabis overdose.

<span class="postbold">Assessing harm</span>

We've tried very hard for at least the last 10 years to put together a structure for assessing drug harms. This eventually became a research paper, Development of a Rational Scale to Assess the Harms of Drugs of Potential Misuse, published in the Lancet in 2007. Despite – or perhaps because of – its novelty and remit, it was very hard to get a paper published that challenged some of the current (mis)perceptions about drugs.

In principle, we broke down drug harms into the following parameters: physical harm (acute, chronic and intravenous), dependency (intensity of pleasure, psychological dependence, physical dependence), and social harms (intoxication, other social harms and health-care costs).

We looked at all the drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act and added some others that weren't already covered by it. For example, we included ketamine, which wasn't covered by the act at the time, solvents, and tobacco and alcohol, because we thought it was very important that harms of illicit drugs were assessed against the harms of drugs that people know and use. This analysis eventually established a ranking order presented opposite.

A number of important points emerged. The ranking suggested that there are clearly some very harmful drugs (you might say these would be class A drugs) and there are some drugs that aren't very harmful, such as khat or alkyl nitrites, which aren't controlled by the act at all.

Interestingly, some class A drugs scored much lower than other class A drugs, suggesting that there is some anomaly in terms of that part of the current statutory classification system.

The ranking also suggests that a tripartite classification system might make sense, with drugs ranking as more harmful than alcohol being class A and those ranking lower than tobacco as class C. The exercise also highlighted how dangerous alcohol is. I believe that dealing with the harms of alcohol is probably the biggest challenge that we have in relation to drug harms today.

One problem is that sometimes you get into what I think of as an illegality–logic loop. This is an example of a conversation I've had many times with many people, some of them politicians:

MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."

Professor Nutt "Why not?"

MP "Because one's illegal."

Professor Nutt "Why is it illegal?"

MP "Because it's harmful."

Professor Nutt "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?"

MP "You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one."

I have been surprised how difficult this concept is to get across to some people, whether they are politicians, fellow scientists or members of the general public.

<small>This is an edited extract from a July 2009 lecture by Professor David Nutt, a transcript of which was published last week by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at Kings College London: www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html</small>

[palmspringsbum]

BBC NEWS | 3 Nov 09

Minister 'appalled' by Nutt exit

<span class="postbigbold">A minister has said the removal of the government's chief drugs adviser in a row over cannabis was a "big mistake".</span>


In a leaked e-mail published by The Sun, science minister Lord Drayson said he had been "pretty appalled" by the decision to sack Professor David Nutt.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said Prof Nutt "crossed the line" in his role by campaigning against government policy.

And Gordon Brown defended his removal, saying the government could not afford to send "mixed messages" on drug use.

Prof Nutt was controversially axed from his unpaid role as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs after using a lecture to say that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

He also said it had been upgraded from class C to class B - against the council's advice - for political reasons.

<span class="postbold">Continuing fallout</span>

The fallout from the decision continues to reverberate around Whitehall and the scientific community.

E-mails printed by The Sun appeared to suggest Lord Drayson was concerned about Mr Johnson's decision.

The newspaper reported him as writing: "Alan [Johnson] did this without letting me know and giving me a chance to persuade him it is a big mistake.

"Is Gordon [Brown] able to get Alan to undo this?" the e-mail reportedly continued. "As 'science champion in government', I can't just stand aside on this one."

Lord Drayson, a former businessman, is responsible for science policy within the Department for Business, including relationships with research councils and the interaction between science and society.

In a later statement, Lord Drayson said he had not been fully appraised of the situation when sending the e-mail in question.

He added that he had since spoken to the home secretary and received assurances about the important role that scientific advice would continue to play in informing government policy.

Prof Nutt has attacked the decision to remove him, saying it gave the impression ministers could treat advisers they disagreed with like "serfs".

Two other panel members have quit in protest at Prof Nutt's exit, saying it threatens to compromise the body's independence, while other members have sought a meeting with Mr Johnson to discuss the body's future.

And the government's chief scientific adviser has said he agrees with the basis of Prof Nutt's arguments over the relative harm of cannabis.

"I think the scientific evidence is absolutely clear cut," Professor John Beddington told the BBC. "I would agree with it."

Prof Beddington said he recognised there had been a breakdown in trust between Prof Nutt and the home secretary and therefore it was "difficult" for him remain in the role.

But he added: "I think it is fair to say we need to make a distinction between scientific advice and evidence - which is the role of experts and scientific committees - and the role of ministers, which is to make policy."

<span class="postbold">'Right decision'</span>

Mr Johnson told MPs on Monday he had asked Prof Nutt to step down because he had failed to distinguish between providing advice and criticising settled policy.

In his first public comments about the row, Gordon Brown strongly backed the decision, saying Prof Nutt had repeatedly undermined Labour's drug message.

"I think Alan Johnson made the right decision because we cannot send mixed messages," he said.

"Scientific advice is very important and we value it. But advisers advise and ministers have to make decisions.

"In the interests of the public we have to show we are tough on drug dealing and the problems that drugs are causing in our communities.

"We cannot send out a message to young people that it is OK to experiment with drugs and to move onto hard drugs. We have to send out a message to young people that it is simply not acceptable."

The Conservatives have supported Prof Nutt's dismissal but the Liberal Democrats say he did not breach any code of practice.
Published: 2009/11/03 16:49:20 GMT

© BBC MMIX

[palmspringsbum]

Sacked drugs adviser Nutt may set up new body

<span class="postbigbold">Scientist removed for views on cannabis says government's advisory council is fatally flawed and should be independent</span>

Alok Jha
The Guardian | 4 Nov 09


David Nutt predicted the ACMD will be unable to do its job properly in the wake of his sacking in a row over cannabis classification. Photograph: Rex Features

The government's drug advice body is "fatally flawed" and should be reconstituted as an independent organisation along the lines of the Bank of England, according to former government drugs adviser David Nutt, who was sacked last week in a row over the classification of cannabis. Nutt said that if the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) was not given more autonomy in future he would consider setting up an alternative committee to provide independent advice on drugs.

"Unless this issue is resolved properly, you're going to have to have an independent group. I know several members of the council will join me if things aren't resolved next Tuesday," he said. "It's obvious the politicians are out of step, that the rest of the world has a more mature view about drugs than politicians.

Next week the remaining members of the ACMD will meet the home secretary, Alan Johnson, to decide on the future for the group. Speaking at a briefing today, Nutt said that an independent drug advisory body would keep the issue out of party politics. "Most scientists would prefer an independent body that says 'these are the harms of drugs, we'll rate them on a classification system then you decide on what the appropriate penalties are'. Politicians cannot decide on harm, they can only decide on matters in their province."

Nutt said that the row over his sacking had affected the future work of the ACMD, with several reviews on the recreational use of emerging drugs halted. These include spice, a herbal mixture sprayed with psychoactive compounds, the sedative GBL and the amphetamine-like BZP. In addition, the arguments had stopped work highlighting the dangers of alcohol.

"Liver disease will become the biggest medical problem, outside psychiatric disorders, in the next 10 years," said Nutt. "Most of that is driven by the toxic effects of alcohol on the liver. Government has to wake up to this timebomb of alcohol."

He said he supported chief medical officer Liam Donaldson's recent proposals to increase the cost of alcoholic drinks, though Nutt went as far as to say alcohol should triple in price.

Nutt was also critical of Tory policy on drugs. "The Tories have been making quite a lot of old-fashioned statements about the need to go back to 'get them off and keep them clean and lock them up' sort of approaches to drug abuse. That I think would be potentially very dangerous."

Though he supported the idea of helping people off drug dependency, he said that the risks for people who relapse should be considered carefully.

"There's good evidence now that in a society where you have abstinence-based approaches, the death rates go up. The reason is quite clear – when you stop using heroin, you lose tolerance, so when you start again with the dose you used to take, you're dead."