Wednesday, 23 January 2019




What is the difference - how might we distinguish - between the recreational use of cannabis and the medical? This question is bound to be at the forefront of discussion when government representatives debate the issue of legalisation.

According to the law, until 1971 cannabis was a substance of potential therapeutic value: it could be prescribed medically. During that year however, with The Misuse of Drugs Act, its status was re-defined: it ceased to be legal. The Government had performed an about-turn.

This was largely due to British agreement with the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961, in which cannabis was classified as a dangerous drug of no therapeutic value. The British Government claimed that cannabis was being misused as a recreational drug.

The justification of the new law has always seemed spurious, and as time has passed increasingly so.

To begin with the negative case against the ruling: cannabis is not nicotine, is not alcohol. It is incomparably less dangerous than these, if dangerous at all.

There has not been a single instance of reported death for which cannabis is directly responsible, whereas, repeatedly, studies have linked tobacco with cancer, with high blood pressure, and with emphysema and a variety of other lethal conditions. Yet it is cannabis that is outlawed, while tobacco, currently, is available in Britain to anyone over 16-years-old.

And as with nicotine, so with alcohol; and intoxication. No study has been able to establish that the 'high' intoxicated state that results commonly from the smoking of cannabis has behavioural consequences of a significantly pernicious kind. Indeed the consequences are by and large benign.

This is hardly the case - to put it mildly - where alcohol is concerned. Alcohol addiction is the world’s most debilitating and destructive disease. Yet in general, in Britain and the Western World, it is alcohol that is the socially approved and permitted option, and the legally endorsed; not cannabis.

We turn now to the more positive argument for reversing the 1971 ruling. What at once needs emphasising at this point is the unbifurcated, holistic nature of our purpose. We are not campaigning for the recreational and medicinal usage of cannabis (to bring ourselves round again to our initial question), for to state the case that way is to presuppose in our argument, or to build into it, a false dichotomy. As far as we are concerned, the recreational very largely is the medicinal, the medicinal the recreational. We are aware, for instance, nowadays, that cannabis can contribute valuably to the treatment of nausea, chronic pain, asthma, multiple sclerosis and various other ailments. Yet to affirm this baldly could conceivably mislead, by obscuring more subtle propositions. We might be truer to our cause if we began with the proposition that cannabis is a mode of self-medication. Animals, we hear, self-medicate by digesting plants and other matter. And so possibly with human beings: many if not most cannabis users (so some researchers believe) are intuitively medicating themselves for stress and / or depression. Which is a way of saying that the cannabis user is not for the most part a person in quest of a 'high', or seeking consciously the cure for an ailment, but a human being searching intuitively for recreation: the re-creating of himself (or herself). This might all seem, and in fact in part obviously is, hypothetical: the jury is still out where self-medication is concerned.

For all that, what is at stake here is an issue we cannot and should not ignore. The cannabis user does himself and his cause no favours - the established opposition being what it is, an embattled force led by people with a propensity to simplistic thought - if he himself understates the complexity and subtlety of his essential purposes.

His theme ought to be that the line between the medical and recreational use of cannabis is blurred, and probably non-existent.

Thursday, 13 December 2018

Do MP's really care about their constituents that need or use the cannabis plant and risk prosecution?

SADLY most Labour MP's did not bother turning up to vote in Norman Lamb's cannabis bill, but here is a list of MP's that did vote either way.

One would think that considering how many of their constituents use cannabis and how many have been criminalised for possession or growing a few plants for their own beneficial use in their own private accommodation, this is SHOCKING - it shows that they simply do not care and few even know the truth about this beneficial plant

IF your MP voted against or did not vote NOW IS THE TIME to write to them; you can find their email or write to House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation) bill by Norman Lamb

Saturday, 3 November 2018

In many prisons cannabis keeps the inmates quiet

In many prisons they unofficially turn an eye away from use of cannabis that is smuggled in: that is because it keeps the inmates quiet and does no harm.
The alternative is hooch, home made alcohol, and that does not keep the inmates quiet at all, or hard drugs that can often cause problems.

That is my message to the Government: by turning their eyes away, by police not chasing after small-scale growers and personal consumers, as some forces have now decided to do, it will keep us quiet. 
Allow people to grow our own, share it, consume it in private and in safety, away from those that do not want to be near it.
 That form of decriminalisation means a change in policy, not even a change in law; that would come later.
Immediate decriminalisation would also mean that the Right to a Private Life and the Right to choose and practice ones own beliefs are respected and are protected by law. 

That is completely separate to the issue of supplying medical grade cannabis products and a separate issue to commercial supply.

Because not everyone can or wants to grow their own, they will want to buy: that can easily be achieved through licensed collective growing / transparent cannabis social clubs and licensed outlets with quality controls and taxes on profits

That would surely keep us quiet?

But this government and probably not the next will not do that.

So --- how do we make some noise without getting drunk?

UK prescription cannabis farce leaves out many thousands in need

Whatever happens in the "medical cannabis" campaign, I personally think that some people that want to use cannabis to benefit themselves and their health will be left out and fear that they will still be subjected to arrest and prosecution for growing a few plants at home or possession - until the campaign focuses on equal rights for all. EVERYONE must be allowed their Rights to private life and choice and practice or beliefs, whther they want to use cannabis as a medicine, sacrament or just for fun, inspiration, relaxation, socialisation etc. 

Then, when everyone is allowed to grow their own, the law on medicine prescriptions will be eased. Otherwise we will be in the same position with cannabinoids as we are with opiates.

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

Letter to Norman Lamb MP regarding "skunk" cannabis

Hi, I just read your article and I must say that I am disappointed that you are still repeating the "skunk" myth.

However the politicians and media choose to define "skunk" in fact it is simply one strain of cannabis that was developed to increase THC content.

Having sampled even some of the strongest forms of cannabis bud (herbal) in UK as well as Dutch coffeeshops and private clubs in Barcelona, and having been consuming cannabis off and on (nut mostly on) for almost 50 years, I can tell you that imported cannabis such as Thai, Vietnam, Indian, Hawaii, Columbia and so on, wee at least as strong if not stronger.

Also incorrect is the suggestion from Prof Nutt that herbal cannabis is stronger than hash, is incorrect and misleading. Hashish is made from the most active parts of the cannabis plant and is more concentrated than the plant used to make it.

In addition, cannabis oils (THC) products such as Sativex, is a more concentrated product made from the strong bud that you call "skunk".

Lastly I would like to suggest that the Human Right to a Private Life and the Right to choose and practice our own beliefs, provided it does no harm or poses no threat to others, seems to be largely ignored by this government which, like the previous ones, have walked over those rights in their effort to prop up their failed policy of prohibition that has clearly done far more harm than good.

You wrote "Left in the hands of illegal dealers, people have no idea of the safety or potency of what they are buying. Dealers typically have little interest in their customers’ well being, and quite often have an interest in getting them hooked on harder strains like skunk."

I think this is a grossly incorrect assumption and the way to deal with it would be to demand accurate labelling and not restrict choice buy limiting potency.

I hope you take this in the educational spirit that I intend.


Taken from "Cannabis: Challenging the Criminal Justice System" 2003, written by Roger Warren Evans, retired Human Rights barrister


The hopes of reformers were high that the Human Rights Act 1998 would strengthen the drive for drugs law reform. The incorporation into English law of the rights of privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights offered to defendants the real prospect of a defence against drug-possession and personal consumption charges. Prosecution for personal consumption constituted an "interference" with the defendants "private life", the reformers reasoned, which could not be justified under the specific terms of the Convention. Those arguments remain strong, and persuasive.

So persuasive indeed, that the UK prosecuting authorities now avoid simple "possession" charges altogether. They have clearly come to the same conclusion, about Article 8. Attractive "deals" are now commonly offered to those charged with "minor" personal possession offences. All the indications are that full criminal proceedings are now being limited to the "aggravated" charges - possession of large quantities of drugs (in excess of personal consumption requirements), dealing or "trafficking", supply to minors, growing or manufacturing prohibited substances, and permitting the use of premises for drugs purposes. This self-imposed restriction itself constitutes a victory for the human rights cause.

But the victory is of limited scope. For the Human Rights Act (Article 8) does not offer any defence to these "aggravated" charges.

Article 8 continues, however, to exercise its influence. There is a powerful Article 8 case to be made against the appalling Regulations which classify drug consumption (including cannabis) as a "relevant disability" justifying the withdrawal of a driving licence. Mandatory drug testing poses a range of different issues, according to its administrative context. Testing by private employers remains a matter of personal contract, falling outside the Human Rights Act. For public employees, its legality will turn on its relevance to the functions performed by the employee. And within the context of judicial proceedings, its legality will turn on its precise statutory context: there is no neat Yes/No test. But we should continue to monitor the gradual creep of drugs testing, and remain vigilant to identify its abuse.

The Human Rights Act has played a leavening role in that wider sea-change of public and political opinion. Nine MPs and one British MEP[2003] are now publicly committed to the legalisation of all drugs.

It is true that the prosecuting authorities, by adopting a sophisticated enforcement strategy, have avoided any high-level challenge in the Court of Appeal, where it really matters. But nobody should lose faith with Article Eight. This great human rights declaration has already softened the style of public law enforcement in the UK, and it retains huge potential to drive back the boundaries of abuse by public authorities.

And it remains true that, while the statutory drugs-prohibition regime remains in place, the judicial process will remain a cat-and-mouse game, with reformers constantly harassing the Authorities. It is only the comprehensive legalisation of supply and consumption that will bring to individuals the full recognition of their personal freedom and the sovereignty of their personal judgment in the conduct of their own lives. That is a worthy goal, and Article 8 will continue to offer support to those seeking to achieve it.

Written by Roger Warren Evans Barrister at Law Secretariat Angel Declaration February 2003

Visualisation from 'Myhat in Egypt: Through the Eyes of a God':

Sunday, 14 October 2018

on the rescheduling of cannabinoids in the UK

Recently the press has widely reported that medicinal cannabis is to be rescheduled to allow specialised doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical-grade cannabis products and extracts to a limited number of patients that have tried all other available treatments and pills for their illnesses.

The UK Government recently announced this decision.

Although this move may lead to the availability of pharmaceutical cannabis products for some, it itself does nothing to address the lack of justice in the treatment of other victimless cannabis consumers.

Let all adults be allowed to grow cannabis for themselves, families and friends: let carers grow it for their craes; let private cannabis clubs be allowed to grow for members and allow consumption in clubs as well as in private houses. Let doctors prescribe cannabonoids and pharmaceutical products for those that need and choose them over the natural plant. Protect cannabis consumers in the same ways as the law protects those that choose to drink alcohol. Ultimately license shops with consumer protection laws applied and tax their profits.
Looking at that as my ideal, and I believe the ideal of many others, this rescheduling is a small step in the right direction, but the problem is that it really puts cannabis into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and profiteers and I don't think does much for the campaign for recognition and protection of our individual rights or equal justice for all.

My fear is that it will put back that campaign for justice: just as people say that doctors prescribe opiates but that does not mean people can make their own, people may say: "if you need medicinal cannabis, go see your doctor"; the doctor may or may not send the patient to a specialist, and they will only prescribe it for certain ailments after all other medications have failed (last resort), a very limited number of patientes, bless them, will get it ... and everyone else is in the same position as now and maybe having to disclose their private information on their state of health or illness in court in mitigation, same as now.

BUT of course I am happy for those loads of people that will benefit although not so pleased that one of them is the prime minister's husband's bank account.

UK: Insider Trading? Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban

Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform
Researching Reform

Monday 02 Jul 2018

GW Pharmaceuticals, a company whose largest investor is UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s husband, Philip May, has received FDA approval for Epidiolex, a new cannabis derived drug to treat childhood epilepsy. The announcement comes just days after the Home Office relaxed the UK’s strictly controlled ban on the medication for two children suffering from related conditions.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid issued a licence for a batch of cannabis oil, which is illegal in the UK, to treat Billy Caldwell, who suffers from violent epileptic seizures. Shortly after the move, Alfie Dingley was also granted a license for the oil, to treat his epilepsy. Alfie had previously been denied the medication.

The Home Office licenses were issued in the middle of June, with FDA approval of GW’s new medicine being announced on the 25th June, in a GW press release aimed at London and California. The approval for Epidiolex would have been given before the 25th.

FDA approval means that the drug can be purchased within the 30 current states in the US which allow medical marijuana once the chemical compound within the medication gets its classification status. California was the first state to allow the consumption of cannabis for medicinal purposes, which it did in 1996. It also has the largest maximum limit for possession in the US.

GW’s move to include London in the press release is not an accident. Epidiolex is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and a decision on whether to recommend approval is likely to be made at the start of 2019. The UK government is also preparing a consultation on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The timeline for the cannabis medication’s production and approval raises serious questions about whether the government has been involved in insider dealing, which is illegal in the UK:

2016 – Theresa May wins the general election
May’s husband owns the majority share in the world’s largest producer of cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals
2017 – Victoria Atkins Becomes Parliamentary Under Secretary – despite almost no government experience
Atkins’ husband owns British Sugar – The company that produces the main ingredient GW uses for its cannabis medication
2018 – Atkins Is Promoted To Home Office Minister
June 2018 – The Home Office seize cannabis medication from a child at the airport, and then return it after the press are alerted to the story
16 June 2018 – The Home Office starts to make exceptions for children who need cannabis oil to treat epilepsy
25 June 2018 – GW Pharmaceuticals announces the FDA has approved cannabis medication it has made, to treat childhood epilepsy
The cannabis medication is now being reviewed by a European body, whilst the government considers making cannabis medication legal in the UK.
Early 2019 – GW Pharmaceuticals finds out if their cannabis medication has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Researching Reform wrote about GW Pharmaceuticals last month, when it was revealed that several husbands of senior government officials, including Theresa May and Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins, had substantial interests in GW, whose chairman is a conservative party donor. Disgraced Family Court psychiatrist George Hibbert is also an investor in the pharmaceutical company.

Very many thanks to Janie Doe for sharing the press release with us.

Sunday, 7 October 2018

UK Government continues to tell lies about the cannabis plant

The UK Government continue to treat the cannabis plant as if it was a dangerous drug, restricting its cultivation to their elite profiteering husbands and friends who will be charging grossly inflated prices for aplant that can easily and safely be grown at home.

RESCHEDULING is not enough - we have had over 45 years of government lies.

In the name of Justice and Rights, the law must be repealed.

UK: Medical cannabis 'will be available on prescription within a month'
Cannabis News