Peter Hitchens

As I type, there is a blog debate between a Mr Tim Wilkinson of the Surely Some Mistake site, and Mr Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday.

Peter Hitchens and Tim Wilkinson are going over the same points that usually crop up in the drugs debate, and a fine job is being made by the both of them.  I will not address the specifics of Peter’s arguments, it’s of no point to this post.  It is not my wish or intention to try and get in the middle of this interesting discussion, I would dearly like to point anyone who has not seen the exchange to go a view the ongoing discussion.

I am both lucky and humbled to receive a very good readership on my own blog.  My viewing figures are not that of the Daily Mail, but, between appearing on the BBC, whoring myself out on social media, the diligent word of mouth of followers, internet forums and linked sites, I hold a privileged position; I am listened to.  I thank all that do read.  This alone is possibly enough to spark an interest within Peter Hitchens.  He may be the full antipode to me, but knowing I hold a modest court may rouse a small curiosity.

I have tried to engage with Mr Hitchens a few times, I have left comments on his blog on numerous occasions.  I may not have any formal education due to my long-term battle with illness, but I can vaguely string a sentence together, and readers of my work will hopefully know I raise decent enough points.  It’s somewhat curious that my comments to Peter never make it through the moderation procedure.  Like most blogs, my comment terms are a free for all.  You are allowed any say, and you shall not be edited.  Peter does not grant the same degree of clemency.  I find this highly unfortunate.

However, this specific blog post of mine is not sour grapes, far from it.  Although I would dearly like to engage with Peter Hitchens, and on occasion I have written him personal comments to that effect, I now feel it’s time that I can lay my personal Hitchens demon to rest.

Firstly, let me explain how distorted Peter Hitchens' view is of the drugs debate.  He wilfully projects the image that those wishing for reform advocate a free market.  Of course, this is nonsense.  The point he never fails to brush under the carpet is that reformers wish for better control through some degree of state regulation.  Mr Hitchens also takes the stunted position of 'legal and illegal' drugs.  This is once more not how it works.  We have controlled and non controlled substances, and a full oxymoron to that effect.  Controlled substances have become feral through street control, and non controlled substances - such as alcohol -  have been given free reign as the industry pleases.  When addressed properly, you can soon see the pattern to why we have issues across the board.  Dealing in lazy language such as Peter Hitchens' simply endorses false notions.  All too often, the prohibitionist engages in a primary stream of discussion; 'Drugs are bad because.' - This does little to treat the symptoms of what is actually going on.  Drugs should be in a place of better control owing to harms, not in spite of them as Peter will advocate.  There is a somewhat stunted logic to the argument that something is bad, therefore perceived illegality is good.  As ever, Peter addresses but a mere surface scratch of an argument.

One of the allies of drugs reform has is attrition.  There is a certain shelf life to prohibition and prohibitionist arguments.  With decades to account for this 'control' model, we can collate all the information we need to make a measured decision.  Peter surely knows this, and this is why he has now gone down the somewhat curious path of declaring that “we’ve never had a ‘war on drugs‘” - and that it’s about time we had one.  This indeed reeks of last ditch efforts on a par with the dusty generals at Flanders.  Peter is now writing a book to this very notion proclaiming that we’ve never waged a war.  Any other person, and this would be labelled conspiracy theory, Peter is now teetering on this knife edge.

I am left with no doubt Mr Hitchens is a moral man, he professes to be so on every occasion, and I have witnessed him is some truly poignant pieces of television over the years.  There is a worrying part of any moral discussion though - (to which Peter basis most of his arguments on in the drugs debate) - morals are highly subjective.  Morals do not fit well with the politics of past.  Morals have been the catalyst of social fall outs and persecution for thousands of years.  Recent history also will attest that one man’s morality is another’s tyranny.  Politics, and especially the drugs debate, should be wary of pontificating that one knows better than the next.  To deliberately reiterate, Mr Hitchens’ main thrust of his sword is based on morals.

In the Policy Exchange debate on the 18th May, Peter came across on numerous occasions as quite bizarre.  In many ways, and ironically, this is a disappointment.  In this specific debate, his arguments were weak and out of place.  It was tantamount to a great boxer that had gotten in the ring one too many times.  As ever though, Peter based most of his rhetoric on morals.  He actively goaded Tom Llyod, and Sir Ian Gilmore, saying (in essence) that their position of social eminence was being abused given that they were personally debasing their own, and social, morals.  Indeed, as with any public figure that speaks out, Peter embarks on a similar tirade.  I fully disagree of course, I believe that the doctors, health professionals and police personnel such as Sir Ian and Tom Lloyd hold a necessitous duty to think of the people that are mandated to protect.  These eminent figures are bound by a code to think of the suffering of people, and to put politics secondary to the actuality of life’s trials.  These front line people are here to hold council on policy, not justify existing legislation.  On the swingometer of morals, I believe these professional figures to be acting in entirely the best interests by speaking out.

Perhaps the best part of this aspect of the drugs policy debate is the fact that rebuttal has a life span.  Each passing month now, prolific figures speak out for the utter failure on the war on drugs.  Peter Hitchens is charged with the task of shouting them down, and informing the public as to why they are wrong.  Even the most dug in of intellects will see that a loud voice that damns discussion on alternatives to judicial control can’t shout the loudest forever.  Peter will eventually realise that by telling an ever growing list of reformers that they are wrong for the umpteenth time may get tiresome and counter-productive to his own point.

Peter Hitchens is a highly intelligent man, no one can deny this.  I do wonder though, given his intellect, why he is unable to see that the 'war on drugs' is purely conceptual and nonsense.  I’m sure he can speak at length as to why the 'War on Terror' is of similar nonsensical tone.  We can’t fight concepts, we can only distort the political rhetoric and make things sound good.  Make no mistake, this moral man is trying to wage war on people; and this is something that he has personally opposed and found repugnant in many regions of the world.

To wear out the moral thread fully, let me conclude with two further points.  I ask aloud; given Mr Hitchens wishes to turn the screw on the war on people; is it moral that we incarcerate those that we deem as having problems?   That is of course if we conclude that worse case scenario is actually true; the other side of the coin is that the majority are non problematic drug users.  This is highly taboo to mention.  But, with my previous point in hand, Peter will probably be all too clear that we don’t imprison alcoholics, or threaten them with the proverbial stick approach, and yet he is a full advocate of hard line measures to those that have substance abuse issues.  I once more fail to see the moral reasoning in this approach.

To stretch the theme of morals to breaking point, I ponder one final point:  Given my personal circumstances and health - and why I’ve entered the drugs debate in the first place from a position akin to Peter's - I soon realised how out of step I was.  I can possibly be forgiven for taking a dislike to Mr Hitchens, I’m sure many in similar position do so.  I could possibly be forgiven in being allowed to hate Peter, and I deliberately use that word with some thought.  But, I don’t.  I actually strangely like the man.  I could envisage a really good conversation with him about an array of subjects.  I would even pencil him in at the famed who would you have at your dinner party game.  I simply believe Peter Hitchens plays the pantomime dame very well.  I have come to view him as an affable man with a devil’s advocates job.  I do not look upon him as my oppressor, my persecutor, but I see him as one of the best tools to hand in the reform sector.  If Peter’s arguments are running thin, then this speaks volumes.

Peter Hitchens is liberally mixing the arguments for reform up, he fails to speak on prohibition harms of substances, and never addresses pure sources and the merits of unadulterated substances.  His generic address of drugs is probably deliberate, but it’s certainly not cricket.  When we can grant emplacements that will ensure a full minimisation of harms through the regulation of substances, and even work within state control to lessen use - as we have with tobacco - Peter’s morals are simply perpetuating the very issues he fights to rescind.  Morals are indeed subjective and should probably be removed from the drugs debate in favour of science and evidence.

All I have ever really wanted from Peter is to be looked in the eye (so to speak) and for him to tell me why I am not allowed my personal freedom, why he wishes me 5-14 years imprisonment, and why I am to be granted no clemency in using a substance that has preserved my organs, and that has given me a quality of life that has until now been missing.  It would be a pleasure and thrill to engage with him, but I do not believe this will happen given previous excursions.

To fully conclude, please do keep it up Mr Hitchens, you’re now doing many favours for the case for reform.

Additional: Peter Hitchens was kind enough to reply, see here:
http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2011/07/peter-hitchens.html?showComment=1309981540670#c4126189245094379933

ISMOKE Issue 6 Released Midnight 1/7/11 - Special Preview

The ISMOKE Magazine - Issue 6 - will be released on the 1st of July.

The magazine, created and edited by Nuff Said, is certainly growing in content and stature.

Please see here for a special preview and spoiler:

http://www.ismokeherb.co.uk/cannabis/issue-ismoke-magazine-sneak-preview/

Reply from David Burrowes MP

In reply to my original letter here:

http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2011/05/letter-to-david-burrowes-mp.html

Dear Jason

Thank you for emailing me about my question on Cannabis use on 9^th May. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you.

I appreciate that this issue is controversial, and that passionate views are held on both sides of this debate. However, I was careful and deliberate in noting a ‘probable causal link’ between cannabis use and mental illness. This position closely reflects the latest official guidance and research conducted by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in their 2008 report ‘Cannabis: Classification and Public Health’.

I fully and actively support attempts to reduce drug use, crack down on drug-related crime and disorder and help those who use drugs, including cannabis, come off them for good. Having met a large number of addicts during my previous career as a Criminal Defence Solicitor, and during my investigation into alcohol and drugs treatment with the Centre for Social Justice, I have been guided to focus on how we can improve treatment rather than change legislation.

Although we do not agree on this issue, I would  like to thank you once more for taking the time to contact me.

Best wishes

David

Letter to Charles Walker MP

Dear Charles Walker MP,


My name is Jason Reed; since appearing on the BBC, I am both privileged and humbled to receive a healthy readership on my blog.  Your reply will be looked forward to.


I write to you regarding your comments in the Commons on 9th June 2011 regarding “Skunk Cannabis”.  I will profess the same as you; I am not a scientist.  However, I do read actual scientific studies and will cite from proper scientists, unfortunately, you have taken council from Mary Brett.  For your reputation, given that she is a teacher and also not a scientist, I recommend that Professor Les Iversen to be the most apt in this discussion given his role as the Chairman of the ACMD.


I’d like to address your comments, specifically, regarding control methods.  Under prohibition, we have ample perspective and correlation of facts.  40years on from the Misuse of Drugs Act’s application, the Government still takes to an arbitrary application of the act.  It is not a tool for prohibition, and indeed the first thing to be read in the MoDA is the mandate for an evidence based policy with a view to exploring alternatives.  Given your preferred control method of prohibition has been utilised up until this point - and account directly for the troubles in which you have detailed in your speech - I propose you question as to why we have such teenage abuse given the feral control of law.  You clearly advocate the connotations of judicial measures, and you even hint at tightening them.  I’d like to ask how this actually aids the protection of the youth given we can equate such a failure as your speech relays.  Please, could you outline the success with regards to prohibition and punitive based controls.


If a child is caught in possession of cannabis, they will get a criminal record and the chances of betterment are hindered greatly.  If we wish to protect our youth, perhaps giving them the best chance to make amends is preferable.  Law also prevents an open discussion given the stigma and consequences, a teenager may well be more receptive to help if they had a more welcoming society.  Treatment programmes for anyone with substance abuse issues are also hindered by the fear of judicial reprisal, this renders the existence of said aid all but redundant.


I believe there are age restrictions on energy drinks in some instances.  It is somewhat baffling that we still have no such system with regards to any substance placed in the MoDA.  Street dealers only need money; no identification needed, and therein lays why we have a ready made teenage market; it is promoted as so.  The ease of use and purchasing amongst the young is a boon to the current market.


I do ask of you, and please specifically answer me if I may ask; given your remarks, you have clearly indulged in similar contexts to that of cannabis, so why when you have; “had a past” - why do you wish for other’s to not be as lucky as you.  When you did not receive a criminal record, and your personal chances of a better future have been unhindered, why do you wish for others to obtain a record and prevent them from the opportunities that you have been privileged to receive?  Furthermore, when the message of law missed you, and so many others in parliament, why do you think it actually works as a deterrent when you are clearly not a great example of such?


You stipulated that the one drug you didn’t try was LSD, as you feared what you had been told.  I of course agree with this loose sentiment in the sense that it is personal risk assessment that dictates personal action.  The message of law means little given there is no way to police this to any degree to impact the issue.  The law currently acts as a deterrent; we agree health messages are preferable and they indeed seemingly fully ushered your personal past actions, I further labour the point and ask why you now believe law to be a correct measure?


Alternatives to cannabis in law would mean, age checks.  It would further mean true education (invariably, we are unable to discuss drugs rationally under prohibition; often resulting in mistruths and scare tactics to the youth who’s personal experiences will attest to the antipodal).  We could also ensure the correct balance of cannabionoids - you are right to point out CBD is absent from much of the street cannabis, but this is owing, invariably, to the fact that cannabis is harvested for weight and potency.  This of course is for profit motives.  Immature and hastily harvested cannabis is what you would term Skunk.  Mature cannabis is vital, and the current trend of bad product is not the super strength cousin by any means - you’re  Written answers and Statement on 4th of April 2011 will confirm this given we actually have no records of potency past 1995.  Please may I see your figures that now claim otherwise?


Citation from blog 16/04/11; Skunk Debunked.


You also neglect the alarming trend for adulterants in cannabis.  As it stands, there is an epidemic of "gritweed" and "soapbar".  In real terms, glass, metal, growing chemicals, harder drugs and diesel are notoriously added to ensure a false potency.  You have made no mention of this in your speech in relation to potential harms.  This is furthermore a direct consequence of prohibition.

The U.N estimates that to impact the conceptual war on drugs, we would need to seize 60-70% of heroin imports.  To cite Scotland, 1% is seized.  (Professor McKeganey)  This specific industry is reliant on a risky import/export business.  Cannabis is domestically grown with some ease, there is literally no way in ever getting a foothold through the CJS.  Based on this, I’d like to draw attention to LEAP and LEAP UK.  They are a body of senior personnel consisting of transatlantic police, prosecutors and judges that raise awareness to the harms of prohibition.  Please do read their work and to why your preferred methods are perpetuating the compounded problem and will ensure more families will suffer the problems you detailed.  This trend is set to get much worse under current law and the current control method; 'control' being the full oxymoron.


I’m sure you are a learned man, lessons from history need to direct our future paths.  As in 1920’s America, prohibition is running parallel to modern day.  We have a health fallout, lack of quality control, and a thriving underground market that has no way of being policed.  Britain also gives an estimated £6billion in profits to the black market.


I’m also sure you’re familiar with the Mother’s Ruin epidemic of 18th Century Britain. At no point did we consider trying to ban our way out of a problem, there is little logic to this.  The Duke of Wellington of course initiated a tax based system that alleviated the problem, and bettered society.


I hope you consider these points and allow me answers to the specific points I’ve asked of you.


I would also be happy to meet with you and actually discuss this further, my health permitting.  I am open to a frank and rational dialogue on the issue.


Thank you for your time, with respect, Jason.
www.homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com

Yet More Weight

ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND: http://clear-uk.org/public-figures-speak-out/


It is the anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.


There is no doubt, despite being a good piece of legislation, the abuse of its application by consecutive governments has meant it has now become an arbitrary tool for prohibition.


To mark the anniversary of the MoDA1971, a group of eminent and prolific figures - including Dame Judi Dench, Sting, Sir Richard Branson and Paul Flynn MP - have signed a letter requesting the unnecessary criminalisation to end .  Further signatories include director Mike Leigh, actresses Julie Christie and Kathy Burke.  Leading lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC also signed, as has former Labour drug minister Bob Ainsworth MP.  Not to mention three former chief constables, Paul Whitehouse, Francis Wilkinson and Tom Lloyd.  The letter was arranged by RELEASE.


The list of reform supporters, and their credentials, are vast.  On record to reform drugs laws are: Kofi Annan; the former Secretary General to the U.N, Sir Ian Gilmore; former president of the Royal College of Physicians, Nicholas Green QC (Chairman of the UK BAR Council).


In opposition, and to provide the counter argument, is Mary Brett.  A science teacher and a trustee of charity Cannabis Skunk Sense.  The Home Office has put out an instant rebuttal saying that it will not consider any action other than their current policy.


Original news stories with various degrees of impartiality can be read:


The Guardian


The Daily Mail


The Independent

Letter to David Burrowes MP

 In Reply :

Dear Mr Burrowes,

I would like to draw attention to your comments in the house on 9th May 2011 regarding medicinal cannabis; they have left me questioning the morality of yourself and the government.

Firstly, let me briefly correct you on your remarks, please do take the time to read - they point out the inaccuracy of your comments:

“Stronger strains” -  http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/skunk-debunked.html

"Mental illness" -  http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/

This is wholly inconsequential to the issue however.  As someone who has suffered debilitating illness for 21 years, I have had a legacy of prescribed medication that has left me numb, blinded and with paralysis; pharmaceuticals have been ineffective and counterproductive.  I am therefore left with two options, prescribed opiates that will leave my organs ravaged, or cannabis which is exponentially more effective and remarkably non toxic (the words of Dr. Lester Grinspoon; Professor Emeritus of Harvard Medical School).

The state can - and does - differentiate between prescribed opiates and street obtained opiates that cause harm through prohibition.  I wonder why this simple premiss cannot be grasped when discussing cannabis.

Your suggestion that it is more important to criminalise all persons and person’s interests regarding cannabis actions, than to grant clemency to people like myself is crass and demeaning.  This is not how a fair and rational society acts, and indeed this is not how the MoDA1971 is mandated to work in its application.  

Your comments have roused discourse within the disabled and chronically ill - not to mention their families who also suffer.

I look forward to hearing your response to this matter.




(Additional - due to a fault at google Blogger, this posting was removed and all comments lost.  I'm sorry to all those inconvenienced)

In Reply to GW Pharmaceuticals (Justin Gover)

GW Pharmaceuticals’ Justin Gover has recently been speaking to the press regarding his work; specifically, Sativex.

It has been said that Sativex is a cannabis ‘based' spray; therefore, this gives less credence to the notion of herbal cannabis medication.

It is too easy to point out that Sativex is THC, CBD and an alcohol extraction - basically meaning it is a cannabis tincture wholly reminiscent of yesteryear’s medicines.  This, however, is irrelevant to the issue.

GW Pharmaceuticals have long been looked at with admiration from the disabled members of community.  Their work has progressed the political credibility of cannabis medication; the company wouldn't be where they are today if not for the support they have received from individuals and case studies.  The relationship between GW and the disabled community has been mutually beneficial.

It is somewhat disconcerting to read some of Justin Gover’s remarks.  Firstly, it has been said that Sativex - far from lending authority to cannabis medication as an issue - it actually renders herbal cannabis redundant.  This comment seems to be embroiled with monetary incentive.  To suggest pure cannabis is demeaned due to Sativex is an glaringly obvious oxymoron.  With thousands of years of enriched history, cannabis medication has a relatively short amount of time to show for its political ignorance. Despite this embargo, cannabis still continues to push boundaries in science and medicine.

Perhaps the biggest point of contention lays in the mantra that Sativex does not get you high, and indeed, other cannabis based (or mimicking drugs) also profess to be: "Cannabis without the high“.

I am not alone when I relay that a large issue is being overlooked, and this voice cannot be heard in what seems to be a media blackout to this side of the story.  Speaking as an outspoken medicinal user of cannabis, I would like to try and convey the side of the story that mainstream would shy away from given the perceived taboos.

The proclamation that cannabis based medicines will not get you high is all well and good as many medical users do not want to for the most part; the option of getting high should not be viewed with such cynicism or disdain though.  There is a distinct flavour that the act of getting high makes a drug enjoyable, and therefore, it is deemed wrong in the eyes of dignified society.

To get high infers laziness, lethargy, and general negativity.  Looking at the literal definition of 'high' - this translates as euphoric, elevated; uplifted.  When locked in a day to day struggle with long-term illness, to receive a boost in mood - whether it is through good news, productivity or some other fashion of mood enhancement - this is worth its weight in gold.  Many who use cannabis as their chosen medication have chosen to do so due to the comparatively safe means over pharmaceutical alternatives.  Indeed, many long-term sick are unable to use state approved drugged highs such as alcohol, caffeine or tobacco.  So I ask; why is it deemed so wrong to receive a lift in mood and happiness through medication?  Do we not have prescribed pills that act in the same manner?  The difference being that antidepressants are notoriously harmful for the most part.  It is a fundamental part of cannabis that it makes you happy, and this side effect should not be denied credibility to those who have little else.  Happiness has a knock on effect in everyday life, and cannabis can help to maintain a level head in oblique situations.

Other side effects of cannabis include appetite stimulation, a sleeping aid, and yes, it promotes the sex drive.  Boy does it promote sex drive; must we delve into this?  I would like to keep it on record that I want to keep the side effects of cannabis.  I believe it to my informed decision to decide what effects of a drug are deemed affable to my body.

There is but one more point that is often overlooked; the self empowerment of having your life handed back to you, and to be in control.  Long term illness means incessant scrutiny.  Being under a constant gaze is another realm of hell that does no favours to the mood of those that suffer.

As Dr. Lester Grinspoon says, cannabis is actually a very safe drug to titrate with given you can’t overdose and the side effects are negligible in comparison to pharmaceutical alternatives.  Those that have chosen cannabis have done so for self preservation’s sake.  Unlike many prescribed drugs, cannabis is non organ toxic, and therein lays the desirability.  To be in control of one’s own destiny is a trait most would not understand until a similar road has been tread.



The Cannabis plant provides thousands of strains, all with differing effects.  To tailor strains to the needs of the user is the beneficial part of this issue that is being wilfully overlooked.  Some are rich in CBD and are good for pain, anxiety, and spasms.  Some are loaded with THC which gives a more euphoric and creative dynamic to the user.  Might I further point out; invariably, these plants are grown with as much care and attention to detail as pharmaceutical grade cannabis.  One could argue that more care and attention goes into cultivation from a medicinal user than it does a multinational company - I guess that one is subjective, but I would argue the case.  Sativex is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, but it certainly has not, nor ever will replace, cannabis in raw form.

Prohibition leaves medicinal users - and indeed anyone - with two options:  Grow your own and face 14 years imprisonment, or, forage for supply on the street for a lesser sentence.  The latter will undoubtedly leave the user at the mercy of hard-line criminality and adulterants such as glass. Contaminated cannabis is now rife on the streets.

Cannabis is more than a medicine, it is cathartic, it is an all encompassing therapy.  Ironically, the benefits of cannabis cannot be bottled and sold as the old adage proclaims.  It is more than a sum of its parts, and it is for the sufferers - not the financially incentivised - that should be heard in this discussion.