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.

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."

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...

Good News & Bad News; Part 2

To pick up where I lucidly left off, in part one of this tale, I spoke of how events conspired against me and how with a healthy self-awareness I was fully aware of my portrayal of image; I was about to step foot into my doctor’s appointment to see if I was sans liver.  Had prescription drugs led me to an early grave?

I had sweated on the harms prescribed medication for decades, the culmination of paranoia was to hit me all at once as I ambled down the lengthening corridor.  On the other side of this doctor’s appointment I was either going to receive a new lease of life or I was to face my demons down like an angry farmer with a shotgun and special brew cocktail.

Thoughts fly while rationality fleas.  The mind raced:

“Pull yourself together Jason, take it how it comes.”  I mumble internally on the broken mantra.  Then, untamed thoughts take over; I didn’t want to face surgery, I didn’t have the pyjamas for one thing.  What if I needed dialysis?  The mind takes over like a feral beast with the horn:

“Right Jason.”  My mind starts to rattle in my head and I subliminally talk to myself, “Roll call, who’s present for this appointment?; Rationality?  Hmm, it’s weak but present.  Fear?  Check.  Terror?  Very present.  Poise?  Poise?  Anyone seen poise?  As I thought, awol.  How about… a sense of calm?  No, that left some months ago didn't it.  OK, please tell me a serene sense of perspective has turned up?  No no, that eloped with poise, now I remember.  So, just fear and terror are present.  Good good.”

If you can’t follow the inner workings of my mind, just know I was as scared as a drummer when faced with a proper musical instrument, I knew what I had to do, but I was just not equipped to deal with the situation.

Knock Knock:  “Come in Jason”  The appointment was off to a good start, right until I broke out in a terminal sweat and went the best shade of red this side of a Dutch “special” district.  Fear was tangible and lodged in my throat.

“So Doctor, what’s the score, am I giving my best to Elvis anytime soon?”

“Jason, you’re ok, results are good, you've nothing to worry about.”

Try and fathom the weight that was  - not only lifted - but flew from my shoulders.  It was comparable to angels on my epaulettes, a true feeling that will not be forgotten.  Perspective can be obtained from moments like this, life has a funny way of grounding you and making you appreciate what really matters.

“So, Jason, would you like to try anti depressants?”

“But, I’m not depressed Doctor, I’ve just had a bit of a rough ride lately.”

I could not very well pour over the details to the doctor of how I am locked in a literal battle with my own government, this would not endear me to any sane person.  Especially, given the fact… I had to broach the subject - THE subject.

“Jason, they’re muscle relaxants, they could help you seeing as you’ve dwindled your painkillers down completely.”

“Well, actually doctor, seeing as you’ve mentioned it, have I got your complete confidence in this appointment?”

“Of course Jason.”

I trust this doctor, even though this is my second time of seeing him, he had displayed more understanding than most of my previous Doctors; I am almost sure I saw a Dr. Shipman once.

“Well Doctor, I have found something that is a literal miracle and helps me more than I can say.”

The doctor shifted in his seat, did he think I was some new super chemist that had discovered a cure for CFS?  No, he knew where I was going…

“Oh right.”

“Yes Doctor, please know I do know what I am talking about, I’ve studied this inside out and have been in contact with the leading professors in this field.”

I can feel myself stumbling, my wile mind decides to break down once more, knowing I am desperate to make a good impression, it decides to vacate and leave a cymbal clapping chimp in its stead:

“Honestly, I know what I’m talking about Doctor, I take cannabis.”

It was at this point I heard a crash of thunder and 1920’s radio play suspense music.  I had outed myself once and for all.

“Oh.  I see.”  the Doctor said while tapping computer keys at his desk.  A brief spell of silence began to deafen me.  Like any compulsive talker who is afraid of silence, the mouth engaged… the mind didn’t:

“Yes, doctor, have you heard of Dr. Lester Grinspoon; Professor Emeritus of Harvard Medical School?”  My first port of call when name dropping.  Argue with me?  Sure.  Argue with Dr. Grinspoon?  Best of luck.

“No, who’s he, is he in this country?”

Damn it!  Denied, my GP was decidedly un-bowled over.

“How about Professor Nutt?”

“And he is?”  

“Come on Doctor, you don’t know Professor Nutt?  The sacked government adviser?”

“He was sacked?”

Well, thank you very much Professor Nutt, way it go to speak the truth, talk of science, and get thrown out of a democratic position of influence.  Thanks for that, lot of good you’ve done me today.

Last ditch effort:

“Ok Doctor, how about Dr. Ben Goldacre?”  Dr. Ben is always a good one to reach for when dispelling cannabis pseudo-science.

“Is he a specialist?  When did you see him Jason?”

“He writes for the newspapers and stuff.”  Even as I said this I could fully understand the image of madness I was portraying.  My “special friends” where an American professor, a sacked government adviser and a man who writes for the newspapers.  I may as well said I knew Captain Jack Sparrow, Jerome from off the telly and Jeremy Beadle.  Strike one.

“The point is Doctor, I’ve not stumbled into cannabis lightly, I’m well burst on the subject.”

“Well, we’ve only got 4 minutes left Jason so I can’t get too far into this.”

Ok, quick, find the most eyebrow raising facts and myth busting  material you can muster - this is what ran through my mind.  Unfortunately, what came out of my mouth was something to the effect of:

“Cannabis.  Um.”

THINK YOU MAD MAN THINK!  What was I doing?!  Come on Jason, you practically do this for a living now… wheel out something, anything, you can do it:

“… Don’t worry doctor; To prevent one case of psychosis, it would be necessary to stop at least 2,800 men aged 20 to 24 from smoking the drug heavily, or 4,700 men aged 35 to 39. For women, it would be necessary to dissuade at least 5,470 smokers in the younger age group, or at least 10,870 in the older one.


For light cannabis use, a single case of psychosis would be prevented only if more than 10,000 young men or nearly 30,000 young women were to stop smoking the drug.”

It would be nice to have a copy and paste feature in the cerebral cortex, but as I am without this facet, (and possibly will be until the robots invade) I unfortunately didn’t muster this great statistic.  Once more, I was let down as I murmured something about young men.  Then, some old rhubarb about smoking, what was I doing?!  I was arguing with myself!  I knew this.  WHY?!  I loath myself, I truly do.  I was but one step away from setting up my own prohibitionist website right there in the surgery.  Why was I doing this?  Strike two.  Over to my partner, I’ll let her field one as I am in breakdown.

“Doctor?”  My partner started.  Thank you, finally I can give myself a break and plan the self-flagellation that I truly deserved.  She continues, “I’ve seen Jason recover and achieve a standard of living unparalleled on cannabis, it really works and, although I would never tell you your job, cannabis is so much more than the news headlines that dictate perspective in this country.”  She was doing well bless her, knock one out the park for me Babe.  She continued, “For example, when he was on just painkillers, he had no standard of living, with cannabis, he can actually live!  And, it’s not going to kill him.  Plus, over the last few weeks, he’s been in his room until the late afternoon…” It was at this point the sirens went off in my head once more; I had just admitted to using cannabis, and my girlfriend had outed me as being in my room for long periods of time.  THANKS BABE!  Nice one.  Good work.  I jump in quick to retrieve the wild thread of conversation:

“That’s because my parent’s place is open house, I need to have rest and quietude for when I’m working on things and in study.  I’m not IN my room per se, I’m merely using it as an office.”

“Jeremy Kyle?”  The doctor asked with head on the tilt.

“NO!  I don't watch that.  And I’m not on FaceBook either!”  Great, can I get me a stereotype?  Yes, yes I can.

So, within ten minutes I had gone from grounded & studied individual who loved to learn and milk life for what little I can get out it, all the while I tackle my government head on, to a drop out layabout who loves to watch narcissistic talk show hosts with a penchant for lie detectors.  A text book appointment.  Strike three.

And then came the killer blow, the doctor spoke hurriedly as my time was up:

“Relax Jason, I will have to put this on your records, I won’t put that you watch Jeremy Kyle though…”

“I bloody don’t!  I watch BBC Parliament.  Honest.”

“Sure you do, anyway Jason, I will have to put on your notes that you use cannabis.  Is that OK?”

“That’s fine doctor.”  It was at this point I saw a giant word on the pc monitor, my notes were in full view, like a moth to a beacon, I read the word:

“ANXIETY.”

Perfect, you couldn’t write this stuff.  I’m in the doctors office, having a breakdown due to thinking I was going to die or lose my liver.  I have just had a mini breakdown in the form of a verbal fit, my girlfriend just outed me as a recluse who lives in a cupboard until early evening, and I have the word Anxiety emblazoned on my medical notes.  I could see the cannabis headlines already.  Then came the hammer blow:

“I know plenty of other patients that use cannabis, Jason, it helps them also.  The only real concern with it is the mental health issue.”  Seeing as I fielded that one already, I was sitting confident and was beginning to relax.  The Doctor finished,  “Jason, the other patients I know that use cannabis do not concern me with the mental health aspect… but you, it does concern me.”  

Crushed.  Like a juggernaut into my chest, this hurt.  I have never, EVER had my faculties questioned.  My loved ones hold a confidence and respect for my mind, it’s the only part of me that seems to not be broken, but in ten minutes of this doctor’s appointment I was all set to star in the remake of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, only with more pants and less cohesion.  I didn’t even bother to try and come back from this, once the onus of insanity is placed, there is not a single thing that you can do to come back from that, every action and reaction will take on connotations of madness simply through being.  This is, perhaps, not a coincidence of cannabis as a contested issue.  The one weapon that is wielded on cannabis is the psychosis issue, the madness, the insanity.  So, how does one ever clear a name from this folly of absurdity?  You don’t, you can’t.  You can speculate madness far easier than you can prove sanity, place a label, and outlooks will conform - stigma will forever linger - no matter how much proof is presented to the contrary.

So,  I left the appointment with relief in one hand and self-loathing in the other.  My doctor was good though, and I do really like him.  He also promised to look up Dr. Lester Grinspoon, this was all I could ask for all things considered.  I did briefly ponder that although law may change, will stigma and stereotype follow suit, or is that to be another battle entirely?  Will hyperbole ever rescind enough for a fair trial of cannabis in the UK?

I did walk out with a new lease of life though, this is perhaps the most important thing.  I had had to address an early demise, so, perspective has been reached and clarity of thought is certainly apparent.  With this said, and with my life addressed as fragile - as indeed all life is - I am fully prepared to fight for what I believe in, life’s too short to hold back.  All or nothing.

An Open Letter & Reply to the Home Office - (& an appeal to the UK)

(UPDATE 09/10/10- Within a week, this blog has had nearly 6000 hits.  Thank you all so much; your word of mouth is working!  Please know this means so much to so many of us.  Please keep up the good work, we've a way to go yet.  You're all hailed as heroes I assure you.  Yours humbly, Outlaw- Jason)

In a response to a letter of mine, the Home Office has reiterated the Government’s position of medicinal cannabis users: "not in the public interest".  Below is my open reply to the Home Office.

Myself and other medical campaigners receive little recognition.  We are the cause that doesn’t need donations of money, we simply need a contribution of united noise.

In a Charge of the Light Brigade moment, and like a badger chewing on its own leg in desperation to escape a trap, I emotively ask my fellow countrymen to address if we are of public interest?  I invest my faith in the UK, please, make a noise for us.

If you would support myself, or an M.S sufferer, a cancer patient who can actually get through chemotherapy with a better standard of living, an AIDS patient, we are all real, behind closed doors and classed as outlaws.  We are at risk of 5 years imprisonment for using what is comparatively the safest and most effective medication for us.  Please address this archaic law.  Email, forward, tweet, blog, FaceBook, YouTube, write, - please - just go to bat for us?

We're not Outlaws, we're simply suffering.  If you do support this plight, become one with us, stand up, be an Outlaw too.

#decriminaliseUK          #imanoutlaw

An Open Letter and Reply to the Home Office.

Thank you for your reply on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister dated 17th September; subject matter - the medicinal cannabis users of the UK.

I have suffered debilitating illness since the age of 8, I’ve largely been housebound for the duration.  I have taken the pharmaceutical route with some trepidation over this period.  My case is not uncommon, there is a large proportion of society that suffers from M.S, AIDS, Cancer, CFS, M.E, Fibromylagia, Arthritis and many other ailments that are also left in the wilderness with treatments.  The human costs of the current law regarding medicinal cannabis users is still not resonating in the UK it would seem.  Many of the pharmaceuticals prescribed are as detrimental to health as they are of benefit.  I can unfortunately play full testament to this; it is with some irony I received the Home Office’s reply at this time.  I have just undergone tests to see if my liver is still functioning.  The heavy years of prescribed medication have taken a toll on my body.  I will spare the futile attempt of describing what it is like to address your own mortality and how this also effects the loved ones around you.  This is my personal pound of flesh to cannabis prohibition.

Although I would never be so crass to insinuate I represent the thousands of medicinal users of cannabis in the UK, I do try and advocate a collective period of reflection on their behalf.  The UK still remains a country that upholds democratic ideals, it is for society to decide what is fair and moral, and it is this vein I reply to the Home Office’s letter.  I ask; is the current law ethically correct?

The Home Office’s reply said: “The Government’s message is that cannabis is a harmful drug that should not be used.”  However, I would like to point out that this is a message that the Government cannot pertain to or back up with factual evidence.  This statement simply remains a “message”.  It is also worth noting that it has not gone amiss that (due to recent news events) the Home Office website has amended its comments with regards to cannabis harm, the website reiterated the Government’s point but no longer can this message be found on the Home Office’s website due to a swift edit.

At no point can the comparative harms of cannabis be used as damning evidence against it, when looked at in conjunction with other controlled and non controlled substances - and prescribed medications- cannabis is a largely benign substance that rates low in harm.  The harms that do come from cannabis are mostly due to abuse and the humanistic traits that come from this, when used responsibly and respected, the comparative harms of cannabis are negligible and this needs to be remembered.

In my own personal comparative harms scale, the pharmaceuticals that I have been prescribed outweigh cannabis exponentially.  As long as I use cannabis responsibly, (which is comparatively easy to achieve) I will suffer little to no consequence.  Like many medical users, I vaporise and limit my intake where I can so it remains an effective source of pain relief and solace.  Under current law, I am not credited with sense to titrate even though the prescribed drugs I have taken for 20 years are highly addictive and high in tolerance building.  Cannabis cannot pertain to anywhere near a similar level of tolerance, addiction, harms or toxicity.  Although I seem to have escaped this period of time with my life and liver, the same will not be true for many others in our democratic community.  If just one more person has to suffer due to this current law, then I propose it is not beneficial to society in any way.

The Home Office has explained the terms of obtaining a cannabis/hemp cultivation & possession licence:  “It can only be issued for research or other special purposes, provided that the Home Secretary is of the opinion it is in the public interest to do so.”

I would like to ask how I apply for a licence as I would like to submit an application.  My research is on going - and it is a simple equation - I am saving my own life in literal terms by using cannabis.  I have explored all options in my battle with illness and have spent a merry fortune on therapies as most of us have in this position, cannabis is the most effective method by a considerable margin, this is the message the Government needs to accept, and this is a message that most of the world has listened to.  I feel my case would also fall under the “Special Purpose” clause of obtaining a licence.  Is there a greater purpose than to ease suffering and to preserve life?  Are the lives of the disabled and suffering of public interest?

I am more than aware the apathy that has surrounded medicinal cannabis users in the UK, it is a plight that myself and other medical campaigners are having to fight with very little support.  We look to other countries and the public support that has been invested; America, Canada, a large proportion of Europe, they have all had weighty champions, public figures and media interest with regards to their infirm and cannabis.  An amnesty has been granted and many other countries have stepped up to the plate for the victims of this prohibition, but the UK has yet to step up to the crease; the consequence of this is that we, as noisemakers, are left with ever more increasingly desperate pleas.  

As stated in the Home Office’s reply, it is worth noting that cannabis has indeed been a schedule 1 drug in the UK for many years, this means: “Of no medical value”.  It is curious that the Home Office goes on to recommend Sativex, a spray derived from the plant.  Is it not an oxymoron that a schedule 1 substance is classified as having no medical value only for licensed drug to be made almost entirely from this plant?

The succinct reply to the recommendation of Sativex is that (mixed with the long and intrusive procedure that the Home Office have outlined that I would need to go through) it is notable that a near blanket boycott of Sativex has been in force in the UK with M.S sufferers (the intended recipients of Sativex) having increasingly lengthy battles to obtain this drug.  I stand little chance.  Also, I would like to point out that if I was to obtain Sativex, it will be at a cost to the NHS of £125 per spray, this equates to around £11 a day.  My autonomy with cannabis is of no cost to anyone but myself.

An overlooked point is the benefits of the therapy that comes with growing your own medication.  The peace of mind, the knowledge base and the quietude of gardening is a serene and helpful process in itself.  By cultivating one’s own medication, you can tailor strains for needs, ensure a source free from street contaminates that have been a result of prohibition, and sever criminal ties.  The increase of punitive measures from severing ties with the criminal element serves only to oppress and endanger further. 

On a very brief note with regards to my questioning of the comparisons of alcohol and cannabis in the Misuse of Drugs Act, The Home Office has said that alcohol falls outside the framework of control due to historical reasons.  Indeed, I know this also, the Freedom of Information acts that can be readily found and obtained proclaim that the Government actually have no scientific reasoning for the juxtaposed position of cannabis and alcohol, but the status quo will remain, simply due to cultural and historical reasons.  Please address how this makes those of us with disabilities feel when we are not allowed any degree of standard of living for no actual good reason.  This alone is another brand of mental anguish that is hard to relay.

A final noteworthy point is the current policy on the “Legal High” ban.  The Government has acknowledged the detrimental consequences of the criminalisation of those found in possession of legal highs, in essence, a decriminalisation process is in effect.  Is this a fair society where experimental substances carry no penalty to the individual, and yet those of us who need a fairly benign substance just so we can get through a day without pain or get a night’s sleep still face 5 years imprisonment?  The Government clearly accepts that decriminalisation has public benefits, so why do we receive no such clemency?  

As medical campaigners who try and raise awareness on this to little avail, I ask one more time for the criminalisation of the disabled and suffering of the UK to be addressed seriously.  A simple decriminalisation is the very least the UK can offer at the current time.  We still risk prosecution in its entirety, as do families and loved ones who simply allow us under their roofs.  It is fair to say prison would all but kill me, I dare say the same can be said for a M.S and cancer patients.  Invariably, we cannot afford the monetary fines either.  

As an adult and citizen, it is my choice and decision to measure the harms and draw conclusions accordingly to my lifestyle, I have taken these decisions with a great deal of time and study.  The government’s message that cannabis is harmful is factually flawed and is of little consequence to the individual who is in mortal combat with the hand that fate has handed them; cannabis is a miracle in real terms for the individual.  It is however the Government’s mandate to take considered decisions based on public interest; I ask our country again, are we of any public interest?  With democracy as our ally, I emotively propose that the current law is not just, and that we are in need of change, aid and compassion. 

Yours, Jason.  (HomeGrownOutlaw)

A quote from Dr. Lester Grinspoon; Professor Emeritus of Harvard Medical School:

"In the twentieth century cannabis has been proposed or shown to be useful as a medicine for many disorders and symptoms. These range from proven to speculative, but they should all be of interest to anyone concerned about human suffering. The narratives of patients illustrate most vividly not only marihuana's therapeutic properties but also the unnecessary further pain and anxiety imposed on the sick people who must obtain it illegally." - Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine (co written by James B. Bakalar)

(Note: Citations and scientific evidence can be found on this blog with many more to follow; it is a deliberate action to this specific blog to focus on the wholly on human costs of the current law with a view to disengage from the deliberately muddying & superfluous debate on the substance itself)