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
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label james brokenshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james brokenshire. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Friday, 13 May 2011
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)
(Additional - due to a fault at google Blogger, this posting was removed and all comments lost. I'm sorry to all those inconvenienced)
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
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.
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.
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”.
Friday, 18 February 2011
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:
Additional - Alun Buffry from the LCA has linked a section which draws attention to the standpoints of politicians. Click here to view.
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.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
PM MP
To all that support change in current policy, I invite you to take part in: PM MP.
What is PM MP? Well, I am hosting a letter that I am encouraging as many people as possible to post one copy to the Prime Minister, and one copy to your MP. It is through weight and numbers that points are grasped and policy changed.
It is also worth sending to the Home Secretary - Theresa May, and James Brokenshire - Minister for Crime Prevention at the Home Office.
If you would like to add your name and address so as to receive a reply, all the better. If you wish to remain anonymous, then that's also fine, but please do take the time to send just two letters to the Prime Minister and your MP at this address:
Prime Minister,
10 Downing Street,
London, SW1A 2AA
Your MP can be found here:
They Work For You
And your MP's address will be:
MP's NAME, or James Brokenshire, or The Home Secretary Theresa May
House of Commons,
London SW1A OAA
Below you can find the template letter that has been created to address the current law & policy that surrounds cannabis in Britain. It is with a great deal of thanks to the Drug Equality Alliance for directing the wording to address this issue correctly.
Please do support this; please send the letters. Fellow bloggers, please also host the letter and send forth.
Either copy & paste the below text into a letter, or I have provided downloadable links at the end of this blog post. Thank you all. Jason.
What is PM MP? Well, I am hosting a letter that I am encouraging as many people as possible to post one copy to the Prime Minister, and one copy to your MP. It is through weight and numbers that points are grasped and policy changed.
It is also worth sending to the Home Secretary - Theresa May, and James Brokenshire - Minister for Crime Prevention at the Home Office.
If you would like to add your name and address so as to receive a reply, all the better. If you wish to remain anonymous, then that's also fine, but please do take the time to send just two letters to the Prime Minister and your MP at this address:
Prime Minister,
10 Downing Street,
London, SW1A 2AA
Your MP can be found here:
They Work For You
And your MP's address will be:
MP's NAME, or James Brokenshire, or The Home Secretary Theresa May
House of Commons,
London SW1A OAA
Below you can find the template letter that has been created to address the current law & policy that surrounds cannabis in Britain. It is with a great deal of thanks to the Drug Equality Alliance for directing the wording to address this issue correctly.
Please do support this; please send the letters. Fellow bloggers, please also host the letter and send forth.
Either copy & paste the below text into a letter, or I have provided downloadable links at the end of this blog post. Thank you all. Jason.
Dear
I am writing to state my view that continuing prohibition of all private interests in cannabis is not in the best interest of society or the individual. Current policy is in many regards counter-productive and a drain on the country’s resources. The administration of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is mandated to be under constant review & evidence based; its concern is solely to reduce social harm caused by drug misuse. I submit that there can be no justification in law for the blanket ban on accessing a substance that many persons use responsibly, and many use to experience the amelioration of symptoms caused by various medical disorders.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seeks to regulate human action re any harmful drug, it does not provide a mandate for prohibition, indeed when one examines the obligations of the ACMD one can see that the law seeks to make arrangements for the supply of controlled drugs. The legislative aim is to control responsible human action and property interests through the regulation of the production, distribution and possession of any harmful drug; this being proportionate and targeted to address the mischief of social harm occasioned by misuse. I note that the law does not prohibit the use of cannabis at all, and this often ignored fact was Parliament's way of opening the door to facilitate a suitable and rational regulatory structure. I place it on record that I wish the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to be used properly, and neutrally; specifically; (under Section 1) -
“(2) (a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply.”
The prohibition of all private interests in cannabis & the denial of the possibility of responsible use has failed:
- The estimated expenditure of £19 billion on the judicial ‘controls’ over UK drug policy is a large sum that cannot be justified in the current fiscal climate. I do not believe it can be proven to be a valid policy even if the nation could easily afford it; it has a high price on liberty, and a paradoxical effect upon the health of all drug users - it has proved futile in almost every way, save for the government's blind adherence to the international treaties it chooses to fetter it's discretion to.
- There is an estimated street value of £5 billion profit going directly to gangs and cartels, and this in turn funds organised crime, human trafficking, and all manner of hard-line criminality.
- Children have easy & ready access to cannabis. Children are dealing cannabis and using cannabis with relative ease.
- There is an estimated 165 million responsible and non-problematic cannabis users worldwide. There is anything from 2 - 10 million adult users in the UK. There is no societal benefit to criminalising such a large portion of society, these are generally law-abiding persons who wish to use a substance that is comparatively safer than many drugs that government choose to exclude users of from the operation of the MoDA 1971 (despite the Act being neutral as to what drug misusers are controlled, the most harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are excluded by policy, but this is not reflected in the Act itself).
- Under prohibition, as in 1920’s America, quality control has suffered giving way to hastily harvested cannabis which acts as the modern day equivalent of the infamous Moonshine & Hooch. The UK media terms this bad product simply as “Skunk”. Cannabis is now being cut with harmful drugs, glass, metal fillings, and chemicals to give false potency, and to add weight for profit motivations.
- To criminalise personal actions that do not harm others within the confines of privately owned property is at best draconian, and at worst futile & irresponsible.
I wish to encourage the adoption of a regulatory system that provides:
- An age-check system to prevent the young and vulnerable from obtaining cannabis with the ease they currently have.
- The partial saving from the £19 billion drug enforcement budget, alongside the estimated street worth of £5 billion potentially collected from cannabis. This would be a considerable sum in aiding the country in fiscal crisis.
- Quality control that can be accorded to cannabis production and sale, thus ensuring that there are no dangerous impurities and that the correct balance of cannabinoids are present (according to the needs of the user) to minimise potential harms.
- Potency & harm reduction information can be provided to adults, ensuring education is the forefront of the regulatory model.
- A restriction on marketing and the creation of designated discreet outlets. As seen in many countries, given a place of legitimacy, the cache of cannabis is lessened in favour of responsibility.
- The freedoms and rights for non-problematic users to be respected.
I do hope that you will give this matter the urgent attention it warrants.
Yours
File Links:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)