A Move - As Good As a Change?

I have a new place of writing residence.  It is with pleasure that I shall direct most of my blogging to the Huffington Post.  Please feel free - whatever your position - to come and join the discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jason-reed

Hope to see you there. Jason Reed.

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.

Guest Post by Dr. Susan Blackmore

Dr. Susan Blackmore posts in response to the Skunk Debunked article of 6th April 2011 -

"Surely the whole point about the discovery of cannabidiol as a neuro-protector is that it is the balance between THC and cannabidiol that counts, not the simple strength or amount of THC. 

Strength (THC content) is largely irrelevant because you can just smoke more or less according to preference. The critical point is that you don't know how much cannabidiol there is in what you smoke.

I believe we need the government to understand that skunk really is something different from old-fashioned good weed and to act accordingly."

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:

"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”.

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

PM MP UPDATE SECTION

Updated 18th Feb 2011 -


So, we're having a few replies back already from the PM MP initiative.  What's PM MP?  Have a look here.


First reply; Nigel Dodds MP OBE:

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted and will be taken into consideration if and when this issue comes before Parliament.

I do appreciate you writing to me to make me aware of your views.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Dodds OBE MP

The second reply comes in the form of a blog post; a reply from Steve Brine MP;

 Connmhaihh Blog  - Well worth a read.

Please keep us updated if you have a reply and would like to share.

Additional - Alun Buffry from the LCA has linked a section which draws attention to the standpoints of politicians.  Click here to view.

Proposition 19 & the Wild West

So, Proposition 19 has been and gone and the road to marijuana regulation was missed by the Californian populace.  Some may see this as a loss for harm reduction and regulation, and without wishing to sound like a dribblerly politician who emphatically pronounces victory as he cleans out his desk and pets the office fish one last time before being removed forcibly from office;

“I told you I won!  Please let me stay, just for one more day?”


“No, but here’s your fish.  Enjoy.”

…this is by no means a step back in the effort for regulation.  To understand why, you have to understand the “cannabis fraternity” of America.  The situation in the UK and California are leagues apart, we’re humming on the same issues, but we are not whistling the same tunes.

The UK is now firmly the proverbial wild west with cannabis in a literal sense, it has become as feral as prohibition America in the 1920's, we have the same degree of gang involvement, (although maybe not as high profile but no less dangerous) and we have the same by-products of the health fallout and distinct lack of health education. Not to mention the crucial point of quality control on the substance itself.

In California, and North America in general, marijuana is not the enigma that the UK still loosely tries to portray.  The substance is so mainstream that all other arguments in the debate are futile.  The stance of “It’s here, it's prevalent, how are we to deal with it” is now the full debate.  This is also true of the UK, but we still chose our best King Canute act.

For decades, California has been the unofficial home of marijuana, and its leap into medicinal cannabis was somewhat abused.  Many true medical campaigners, although pleased access was granted to non toxic mediation, many felt that the Californian model didn’t do any favours for anyone but the actual state itself.  Todd McCormick, (a prolific figure amongst medicinal cannabis campaigners who served 5 years in prison despite defeating numerous different cancers with cannabis) spoke of the mockery of the Californian model recently.  The ease and malaise of the prescribing doctors of California may have diminished respect for the true issue of medical use.  This is purely the result of a lazy attempt of regulation due to the politics that inevitably run alongside of the subject.  It’s also worth noting that indolent regulation has not fully appeased the gang problems of California.

The reason the marijuana proposition was not passed is not due to a left and right issue of political gesticulation, it’s not based on health and related campaigns, it was based purely on who gets control of cannabis and the profits.  When the Tea Party and Sarah Palin (perhaps one of the furthest right in the U.S) back the regulation of cannabis, you know this is no longer a battle of politics, this is a battle in capitalistic terms.

Abstainers of the vote included:

The student vote who didn’t care one way or another, being de facto legal anyway, they did not see it as any degree of change.

Then we have the actual cannabis community; feeling protective over the plant due to the rocky history with politics and big business, saying no to prop 19 was a vote for personal empowerment and to deflect big business away from marijuana.  Proposition 19 was also seen as path that would directly effect product quality detrimentally, and consequently, health.  The whole debate was indeed turned on its head and fragmented.  When viewed from the polls of 46.2% for - 53.8% against, this paints one picture, but when on the ground and embroiled in the issue, the disjointed cannabis community were the breakers of Prop 19 - it was seen as not good enough by a weighty portion of voters.  Not to mention a conflict of interest for existing cash croppers.

Cannabis in California and North America tends to be viewed cheekily and many users are blazon in their use, celebrity culture also surrounds cannabis.  Marijuana is talked about openly, and therefore, is not feared and perspective has been reached on responsibility of user.  Although many would not consider marijuana a problem in North America, the fragmented laws and lack of regulatory consistency may be the point of contention and harm.

Comparing the UK to this, and the distinct lack of understanding due to the cries of “heretic” any time it's up for discussion and debate, the consequences are tragically inventible.  We have entered the dark ages, and as said, the UK is now the wild west.  Due to the UK’s totalitarian ethic with cannabis, information has been the casualty.

What is the specific difference between California and the UK?  Well, to know cannabis is to know how to reduce potential harm.  Basic emplacements are needed.  In essence, California have a quasi age check system through their less than perfect model, and any user will be aware of simple factors;

• Dosage
• What strain (there are thousands)
• What THC and CBD content
• Harvesting traits
• Ingestion methods and potency therein.

If you do not know these factors, then you do not know cannabis; therefore, you should not ingest.  I ask, how many in the UK are actually aware of these simple measures?  California, to a degree, have always had this baseline knowledge, and certainly have with their current existing system.

It is also interesting how we talk of the same subject with our American cousins, but each country has differing media weapons.  The UK focuses mainly on the word “psychosis” whereas America’s version is that marijuana kills brain cells, this is mainly due to the Rupert Heath study on monkeys in 1974.  [8 minutes in]

The Heath study turned out to be a tragic exercise in trying to make the facts fit the picture as opposed to the actuality of scientific study; the monkeys tested were starved of oxygen to achieve the desired and decisive result.  Pseudo-science is transatlantic.

So, it is a strange world we live in where social perspectives are awry from all manner of outlooks, California rejected a model of regulation due to it not being good enough while the UK adopt the burying of the head stance.  Neither are perfect, but at least the former model of California addresses personal harms of users and abates accordingly - and dare I say it - act as grown ups.  Whereas the UK’s method of full and undulated prohibition adds exponentially to the potential harm.

If there is one thing that can be agreeable, it is that big business should not get a hold or be involved in cannabis, this is not a wise move for anyone.  So, proposition 19 has failed, and for some strange angles of reason; unless of course, we negate the power of the alcohol lobby… I wonder.  I wonder...

One thing is for sure though, when the UK paper - The Daily Mail - put out a well reasoned, logical and progressive piece for regulation, you know change is coming.  The lessons to be learned from California is to get regulation right and you won’t have to mop up the insidious loose ends of half measures.

Perhaps Britain is set to lead the way after all...