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/
Showing posts with label Peter Reynolds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Reynolds. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
ISMOKE Issue 6 Released Midnight 1/7/11 - Special Preview
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/
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Skunk Debunked?
Over the last few years, an almost separate debate has raged; like a hybrid version of the issue, Skunk has now taken the place of contention over cannabis.
Cannabis was downgraded from class B to C in 2004, but was moved back to class B in 2008, due to the “new breed of cannabis” - the “super strength cousin” - namely, Skunk. The potency of Skunk was suggested to be three or four times stronger than that of cannabis.
Dr. Ben Goldacre has played an intrinsic part in debunking the Skunk myths; his piece in Bad Science repudiated the now infamous Independent piece that retracted their calls for cannabis regulation. Please see here for Dr. Goldacre’s work on debunking the potency myths.
It is perhaps western arrogance personified that we proclaim cannabis botany has progressed in a few years of domestic cultivation when eastern countries have thousands of years to show for their production of the plant.
Debra Bell - a prohibitionist campaigner - only talks in terms of Skunk and the high potency. This directly from her site:
Interestingly, the opening paragraphs seem to indicate that, yes indeed, the cannabis of yesteryear was relatively harmless. So why do we have the perceived super strength cousin, and why did the government reclassify solely on the the higher potency of Skunk? Skunk now justifies all actions within media and government circles.
It is very interesting, however, that on the 4th of April 2011; in a Written answers and Statement, Charles Walker MP asked:
Given the dangerous potency of Skunk, this is an exemplary question. The answer given by James Brokenshire is interesting:
So, we have no information on the THC potency prior to 1995.
As with David Cameron’s statement in the Al-Jazeer interview regarding his “very very toxic” comments (as documented by Peter Reynolds), the Prime Minister also made reference to the high potency of modern day cannabis. Once more, no evidence is available to substantiate the claims.
Don’t be fooled, we do not have super strength strains, we simply have good quality and bad quality. The government & media’s version of Skunk is simply a marketing campaign. Skunk is also known as “street weed” - badly cultivated cannabis that has been harvested too early, has not been flushed correctly thus meaning growing chemicals still are present. The balance of cannabinoids are incorrect, and often the cannabis is cut with harder drugs, glass, or better known as “grit weed”.
Consequently, I would like to place it on record; the government has no evidence for the claims of higher potency cannabis, or “Skunk”.
Cannabis was downgraded from class B to C in 2004, but was moved back to class B in 2008, due to the “new breed of cannabis” - the “super strength cousin” - namely, Skunk. The potency of Skunk was suggested to be three or four times stronger than that of cannabis.
Dr. Ben Goldacre has played an intrinsic part in debunking the Skunk myths; his piece in Bad Science repudiated the now infamous Independent piece that retracted their calls for cannabis regulation. Please see here for Dr. Goldacre’s work on debunking the potency myths.
It is perhaps western arrogance personified that we proclaim cannabis botany has progressed in a few years of domestic cultivation when eastern countries have thousands of years to show for their production of the plant.
Debra Bell - a prohibitionist campaigner - only talks in terms of Skunk and the high potency. This directly from her site:
"It is not the same stuff as you may have smoked at college in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and can have devastating effects on the young.THC (the chemical that gives the high) has increased in the new super-strength cousin of cannabis – sinsemilla (called ‘skunk’ because of its pungent smell). Average THC in skunk is 16%, sometimes more. This is much higher than the herb (1-3%) and the resin (4-6%) Another chemical present in cannabis is cannabidiol (CBD), occurring in negligible amounts in the stronger strains. CBD is thought to contain anti-psychotic properties, counteracting the effects of THC. Smaller amounts in skunk may account for the commonly reported psychotic reactions.Interestingly, CBD appears to have been virtually bred out of skunk, which may account for the devastating effects we are seeing, especially among the young."
Interestingly, the opening paragraphs seem to indicate that, yes indeed, the cannabis of yesteryear was relatively harmless. So why do we have the perceived super strength cousin, and why did the government reclassify solely on the the higher potency of Skunk? Skunk now justifies all actions within media and government circles.
It is very interesting, however, that on the 4th of April 2011; in a Written answers and Statement, Charles Walker MP asked:
“…what the average THC content of seized skunk cannabis was in the latest period for which figures are available; what the average THC content of cannabis seizures was (a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 20 years ago”
Given the dangerous potency of Skunk, this is an exemplary question. The answer given by James Brokenshire is interesting:
“The latest data from the Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS) show that the average tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of mature flowering tops from plants, otherwise known as sinsemilla, seized and submitted to the FSS from the 1 January 2008 to the present day was 14.0%. By comparison, during the same period, the average THC content of traditional imported cannabis and cannabis resin was 12.5% and 5.5% respectively.
Information on average THC levels of cannabis available in the UK prior to 2008 is available in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2008 report 'Cannabis: Classification and Public Health', which can be found on the Home Office website via the following link:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/acmd/reports-research/
This summarises data available at that time, including FSS data from 1995 to 2007 and data from the Home Office's Cannabis Potency Study 2008, published by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch. Information on average THC levels of cannabis prior to 1995 is not available.”
So, we have no information on the THC potency prior to 1995.
As with David Cameron’s statement in the Al-Jazeer interview regarding his “very very toxic” comments (as documented by Peter Reynolds), the Prime Minister also made reference to the high potency of modern day cannabis. Once more, no evidence is available to substantiate the claims.
Don’t be fooled, we do not have super strength strains, we simply have good quality and bad quality. The government & media’s version of Skunk is simply a marketing campaign. Skunk is also known as “street weed” - badly cultivated cannabis that has been harvested too early, has not been flushed correctly thus meaning growing chemicals still are present. The balance of cannabinoids are incorrect, and often the cannabis is cut with harder drugs, glass, or better known as “grit weed”.
Consequently, I would like to place it on record; the government has no evidence for the claims of higher potency cannabis, or “Skunk”.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!
On Wednesday 9 March, the House of Lords held a Question For Short Debate on making the case for a Royal Commission on drug use and possession. The debate was initiated by Lord Norton of Louth.
Lord Norton has hosted a comment section to his blog with a view to collating sources, evidence; and commentary that could be useful in the issue at hand. Please do view the noble Lord’s blog and comments here.
The actual Question For Short Debate can be viewed here (from 19:48 onwards)
-or the written transcript here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-03-09a.1673.2
The debate was overwhelming in the comprehensive call for evidence evidence evidence. In fact, at a quick count, the word evidence was used 42 times in the house, with every Lord calling for an elucidation of; and for a full evidence based policy.
Professor Nutt, of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, has long campaigned for evidenced based policy. David Nutt has received criticism for - what some consider - his lobbying for a full utilisation of evidence in drug policy. One can only make a fist of the frustration felt by, not only Professor Nutt, but a growing list of scientists who have resigned from the ACMD and related government roles. Scientific evidence has been wilfully dismissed in successive governments. The now full disengaged of science in drug policy is farcical, not to mention, a worrying conceptual blow to democratic ideals. It can be argued that the UK has a disingenuous and opinion based policy.
The list of lords that spoke out in favour of progressive measures in current drug law shows to some degree that this issue has long been dominated by media intervention over content. No more can this ethic be seen than by Baroness Joan Walmsley, LibDem peer, during the House of Lords debate on a Royal Commission on drugs policy, 9th March 2011
“My Government, who were elected with 60 per cent of the vote, should have the confidence to defy the tabloid newspapers. They should get the facts and act on them. We should not be afraid of ignorant, misleading and downright evil tabloid headlines. It is the right thing to do. Please let us do it!”
If The UK are serious about progressing societal wellbeing, it is hoped that this particular Question For Short Debate will go someway in ensuring more support within the houses, more support at grass roots; and an unpartisan media perhaps. The drugs debate is not a flippant issue; thanks has to be given to Lord Norton, Baroness Meacher and the list of lords who raised their heads above the parapet in calling for the investigation of drug policy.
The government’s response from Baroness Neville-Jones is perplexing to say the very least. Not only did the words of the noble lords fall on the deaf ears of government policy, but a skewing of facts was evident towards the end of her speech. Baroness Meacher fully contested Baroness Neville-Jones on her perceived understanding of Portugal and drug related HIV rates.
It is furthermore puzzling, given the strenuous content of the debate, just why mainstream media has had no interest in the content of the discussion. As ever, it falls to the word of mouth of dedicated individuals to raise much needed awareness to the fruitful dialogue in the House of Lords and to reciprocate the measured, and noble, vociferousness displayed in the house. If nothing else, this session will go someway in securing further proceedings.
Additional: following the Royal Commission dialogue, an all party group led by Baroness Meacher, with Lord Lawson, and the former heads of the BBC, MI5 and CPS - seek an evidence based policy and conclude the 'war on drugs' has failed. The study is in conjunction with the Beckley Foundation. Read more here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html
Lord Norton has hosted a comment section to his blog with a view to collating sources, evidence; and commentary that could be useful in the issue at hand. Please do view the noble Lord’s blog and comments here.
The actual Question For Short Debate can be viewed here (from 19:48 onwards)
-or the written transcript here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-03-09a.1673.2
The debate was overwhelming in the comprehensive call for evidence evidence evidence. In fact, at a quick count, the word evidence was used 42 times in the house, with every Lord calling for an elucidation of; and for a full evidence based policy.
Professor Nutt, of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, has long campaigned for evidenced based policy. David Nutt has received criticism for - what some consider - his lobbying for a full utilisation of evidence in drug policy. One can only make a fist of the frustration felt by, not only Professor Nutt, but a growing list of scientists who have resigned from the ACMD and related government roles. Scientific evidence has been wilfully dismissed in successive governments. The now full disengaged of science in drug policy is farcical, not to mention, a worrying conceptual blow to democratic ideals. It can be argued that the UK has a disingenuous and opinion based policy.
The list of lords that spoke out in favour of progressive measures in current drug law shows to some degree that this issue has long been dominated by media intervention over content. No more can this ethic be seen than by Baroness Joan Walmsley, LibDem peer, during the House of Lords debate on a Royal Commission on drugs policy, 9th March 2011
“My Government, who were elected with 60 per cent of the vote, should have the confidence to defy the tabloid newspapers. They should get the facts and act on them. We should not be afraid of ignorant, misleading and downright evil tabloid headlines. It is the right thing to do. Please let us do it!”
If The UK are serious about progressing societal wellbeing, it is hoped that this particular Question For Short Debate will go someway in ensuring more support within the houses, more support at grass roots; and an unpartisan media perhaps. The drugs debate is not a flippant issue; thanks has to be given to Lord Norton, Baroness Meacher and the list of lords who raised their heads above the parapet in calling for the investigation of drug policy.
The government’s response from Baroness Neville-Jones is perplexing to say the very least. Not only did the words of the noble lords fall on the deaf ears of government policy, but a skewing of facts was evident towards the end of her speech. Baroness Meacher fully contested Baroness Neville-Jones on her perceived understanding of Portugal and drug related HIV rates.
It is furthermore puzzling, given the strenuous content of the debate, just why mainstream media has had no interest in the content of the discussion. As ever, it falls to the word of mouth of dedicated individuals to raise much needed awareness to the fruitful dialogue in the House of Lords and to reciprocate the measured, and noble, vociferousness displayed in the house. If nothing else, this session will go someway in securing further proceedings.
Additional: following the Royal Commission dialogue, an all party group led by Baroness Meacher, with Lord Lawson, and the former heads of the BBC, MI5 and CPS - seek an evidence based policy and conclude the 'war on drugs' has failed. The study is in conjunction with the Beckley Foundation. Read more here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html
Monday, 28 February 2011
ISMOKE Magazine Issue 2
The second issue of the ISMOKE magazine shall be released at midnight on the 1st of March. What better way to get yourself ready for spring?
The second issue's contents:
The second issue's contents:
- Lead Editorial – Nuff Said
- Cannabis Is A Wonderful Thing – Peter Reynolds
- Cannabis In The News
- Meet The Sprayer – Nuff Said
- An Interview With Jason Reed – Nuff Said
- Bud Porn – THCDUDEUK
- Strain Reviews – The Cannablog
- When There’s A Wall, There’s A Way – Clark French
- Twisted Logic, You Know It Makes Sense – Jason Reed
- Marijuana Myths: The Dangers Of Smoking Cannabis – Cure Ukay
- The New Legalise Cannabis Alliance – Peter Reynolds
- Recreational Or Medical: A Distinction Without A Difference – Alun Buffry
- UKCIA – Derek Williams
- Your Pictures
- My Sacrament – Jakub Carter (FRANKDONTKNOWJACK)
- Around The World – Cannabis College Amsterdam
- Stateside: Nuff Said Reaches Out To Farmer Tom
- Blogs You Should Read – Nuff Said
- Cannabis Strains – Rags (THCTALK)
- ISMOKE Reviews – Nuff Said
- How To Do Your Bit For The Cannabis Campaign – Nuff Said
- ISMOKE Competition
- My Story – Luke Bunce
- Visitor Map On ISMOKEHerb
Click this link for details:
Monday, 7 February 2011
ISMOKE Magazine - Issue 1
The editor and creator of this new magazine is none other than fellow blogger and friend Nuff Said
Issue 1 contents:
The contents of issue 1:
- Lead Editorial – Nuff Said
- Cannabis In The News: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
- Proposition 19 & The Wild West – Jason Reed
- An Interview With Peter Reynolds – Nuff Said
- Cannabis In Cartoons – Nuff Said
- The Politics Of Cannabis – Peter Reynolds
- A Word From The LCA – Alun Buffry
- ISMOKE Would Like To Hear From You
- Stateside: Why Are We Behind Our American Cousins? – Nuff Said
- What Are You Smoking With?
- UK Drug Policy Is A Contradictory Mess, Stuck In The 1970s – David Morris
- Will Somebody Think Of The Children? The Problems Caused By Prohibition – Cure Ukay
- My Story: How I Was Treated As A Self-Medicating Cannabis User – Tina Silva
Issue 2 of this online publication is already in the process of being written & filled with another bumper crop... pardon the pun.
So, click and read ISMOKE Magazine - and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)