Cannabis presciption and court cases in the UK

Recently there have been several interesting and possibly progressive results in court regarding the acquisition of cannabis for medicinal uses since the Home Secretary changed the law to allow cannabis on prescription in 2018.

Since the law was changed, very few people in the UK and with recognised medicinal needs have been able to get prescriptions for cannabis, and when they do it is done privately and at great monthly cost.

Legal cannabis: why only 18 people have been given a prescription in the UK despite the law changing Recently, as a result of legal action in the High Courts in London, Charlotte Caldwel, the mother of epilepsy sufferer Billie Caldwel, secured a major breakthrough in her High Court battle to obtain medicinal cannabis for him on the NHS. The judge was told that a London-based paediatric neurologist is prepared to write the prescription for teenager Billy Caldwell - if his trust gives him the green light.

She wanted a declaration that a GP or clinician can lawfully write prescriptions for cannabis-based treatment under the direction of an expert in epilepsy diagnosis and management. Other experts have already provided an opinion on the benefits of the treatment for Billy. "All that's missing is the doctor to be told he can do that. That seems to be the only impediment," she said.

So it seems that despite the change in law, the issue was that doctors were unable to write the prescription.

In the meantime, Ms Caldwell had travelled abroad to get cannabis oil for his son and illegally imported it to the UK, which could have sent her to prison. Although licenses (a prescription) were legally available, she had been refused.

This reminded me of a case in Norwich back in the 1970’s.
Michael Smith wanted to sell hot dogs from a street stall and was told he would need a license. He applied and was refused. He was told that although Norwich City Council could issue licenses for street trading, they didn’t.

So Michael set up his stall and sold his hot dogs,ensuring all health and safety regulations were fulfilled.

He was arrested and taken to court.

In court he argued that he had tried to buy a license but the council did not issue them, so to be convicted of not having a license would be unjust as it would be punishing him for not doing something that it is impossible to do. He was given a one pound fine.

This was repeated several times, each time he was fined just one pound, until Norwich City Council decided to issue licenses.

At one day people had to buy a dog license to possess a dog, otherwise it was an offence because they could have bought one, but did not. The same for fishing licenses – you cannot be charged with fishing without a license if there are no licenses available, only if there is.

With TV licenses they say it is an offence to watch TV without a license (which is itself arguable) but once again it is possible to buy one so it becomes possible for it to be an offence not to buy one, if you watch TV or even own a TV in working order.

In conspiracy law, one cannot be convicted of conspiring to do something that it is impossible to do.

Many court cases about cannabis involve charges of cultivation without a license when it is a fact that licenses are issued to big companies such as British Sugar Corporation and GW Pharmaceuticals (coincidentally part-owned by prominent Conservative politicians’ husbands) but refused to individuals that apply.
Once again, how can it be an offence to not do something that it is impossible to do?

Another case that attracted attention was that of R v Lezley and Mark Gibson at Carlisle Crown Court.

In this case Lezley, who had previously been supplied on prescription with Sativex, a full-extract cannabis produced by GW Pharmaceuticals, and later it was withdrawn. She then decided it was essential to grow her own to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. Acting on “Information supplied”, the couple were raided by police and found with a few small cannabis plants and home made cannabis chocolate, arrested and taken to court. It took the CPS many months and through several court appearances which were themselves devastating to Lezley’s health, whilst she had no cannabis either.

But when Lezley was allowed a private prescription for cannabis, promising a cost of £700 a month, the CPS decided not to offer any evidence and the charges were dropped and Lezley and Mark declared not guilty.

The prosecution said the couple were now accessing a medicinal form of the drug legally and it would therefore not be in the public interest to continue the prosecution.

Prosecuting barrister Brendan Burke insisted that the couple had broken the law and warned that they would be prosecuted if they did so again.

The Gibson’s charge would have been the cultivation of cannabis without a license which they could not get. Possession of cannabis without a prescription when it had not been possible to get a prescription. Obviously to deny a seriously ill person that can show the beneficial effects of a medicinal plant that it was not legally possible to get, a license (prescription) and then punish for trying to grow their own plants would be unjust.

So long as Lezley gets her cannabis on prescription, albeit expensive and many many times more costly as growing her own) she will not be prosecuted, but if whilst on prescription she also grows her own, she may be prosecuted again.

Weighing that up: in need but unable to get a license (prescription) charges dropped; can get a license but grows ones own, court case.

It sounds more like the Mafia: now you can buy from us at greatly inflated prices we will send round the heavies to punish you if you source it cheaper.

There are a couple of other cases coming to court where people in dire need of cannabis that I they find effective against illness and are unable to get prescriptions or licenses are being dragged through the courts unjustly and it is argued that those prosecutions (in fact the arrests and charges) are unjust and what is certain is that these people and nobody else are not being helped, they are being punished for trying to stay well, even stay alive, without harming or risking others. That would only happen under tyrants.

Pensioner arrested over cannabis possession says he grew plants to 'save his life'

Michelle X convicted of growing cannabis at her home twice

When it comes to the nitty-gritty, many cases of possession or cultivation of cannabis are actually about lack of licenses or prescriptions, they are not about victims. They exist dues to political whim, not Justice and Rights – such cases defy Justice and Rights.

In many cases it is the authorities that are guilty of infringing upon our Rights and making court cases against doing something that the Government is able to allow them to do, in their private lives.

And all at public offence whilst politicians spouses make massive profits from doing the same on a massive scale.

UK authorities smash through Human Rights to arrest Gibson couple for growing cannabis to treat MS

In January this year Carlisle police ignored the Human Right to a Private Life entering the home of Lezley and Mark Gibson to arrest them for growing their own medicine.

Lezley, who suffers terrifying symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis and finds relief from the plant, has recently been able to get it on prescription, costing her over £1000 a month as opposed to tens of pounds cost of growing her own.

This is not the first time that the couple have appeared in court on cannabis related charges. Lezley was busted in the late 1990's but found not guilty based upon the then usable defence of medical necessity. The couple also appeared in court and were given suspended prison sentences in 2007 for supplying free cannabis-laced chocolate to other MS sufferers.

This time Mark and Lezley were growing just ten plants for their own use, in private, at home.

Meanwhile the husbands of Prime Minister Theresa May and Drugs Minister Victoria Atkins continue to reap in the profits from their shares in the businesses that grow and export massive amounts of plant material for "medicinal use" whilst simultaneously the Government denies that the plant has any medicinal value and continues to authorise the arrest of thousands of people in urgent need of this natural and remarkably safe plant.

Surely the Misuse of Drugs Act was not meant to punish people for growing plants that they find beneficial.

Surely the law ought to protecting our Right to a Private Life and our Right to choose and to practice our own beliefs, so long as there is no harm to others, their Rights, or public health.

Once again, it appears that in the UK there is one law for some and another law for others. Another sad day for British Justice


Carlisle couple accused of cultivating cannabis plants at home appear in court (Mark and Lezley Gibson)

MS Sufferer Cleared Of Cannabis Charge 2000

CHOCOLATE-BAR DRUGS TRIO ESCAPE PRISON SENTENCE 2007

Farce and corruption: drugs minister Victoria Atkins MP recuses herself from drugs debate 'due to my husband's business interests'

Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban

How Britain became the world's largest exporter of medical marijuana

CANNABIS and HUMAN RIGHTS

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?

One way or the other, the UK Government is teling lies about cannabis

IF the UK Gov are to be believed when they say cannabis is a plant with no meedicinal value, and yet grow and produce and export so much "medcine" from it, one way or the other it must go down on one of the biggest cons in history

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-worlds-largest-producer-of-legal-cannabis-11278131

UK is world's largest producer of legal cannabis

A drug reform group slams the Government for "maintaining cannabis has no medical uses" while allowing its export abroad.

The UK is the world's largest producer and exporter of legal cannabis for medical and scientific use, according to a new report from a UN body.

The UK produced 95 tonnes of legal cannabis in 2016, more than double the total of the previous year, reveals the UN's International Narcotics Control Board. This accounted for 44.9% of the world total.
The nearest competitor is Canada, with 80.7 tonnes.
Some 2.1 tonnes was exported from the UK, making it responsible for 67.7% of the world total, followed by the Netherlands (16.4%).
A drug policy reform lobby group has criticised the UK government, saying they have "consistently refused to allow medical cannabis in the UK on the basis that it has 'no therapeutic value'".

Steve Rolles, Transform's senior policy analyst said: "It is scandalous and untenable for the UK government to maintain that cannabis has no medical uses, at the same time as licensing the world's biggest government-approved medical cannabis production and export market.
"UK patients are either denied access and suffering unnecessarily, or are forced to buy cannabis from the criminal market.
"Countries with proper access to medical cannabis do not have this problem, as standardised cannabis products are in the hands of doctors and pharmacists."
A significant part of the UK's legal cannabis production goes towards a cannabis-based medicine called Sativex, produced by GW Pharmaceuticals.
It is available on prescription for patients such as those suffering the effects of multiple sclerosis, but it is only on the NHS in Wales.
 Alfie Dingley, aged six, is a British boy who suffers from a rare form of epilepsy, something his parents say can be treated with cannabis oil.
Alfie, from Kenilworth, returned from the Netherlands last month, where he had been receiving this treatment.
His parents want the Government to let him use the medication in the UK but it is banned.

The Government has responded to the petition – “Legalise cannabis for medical and recreational use.”

So the government still stubbornly insists that the cannabis plant itself has no medicinal value, hence classifying those kind souls and profiteers alike that manage to extract edicinal compounds from a plant with no mdeicinal value as MIRACLE WORKERS. 

The only way to get a government to legalise is to persuade Labour to adopt the policy NOW so that when elected, they may make a move - and THAT IS UP TO YOU - write now to Jeremy Corbyn 

Dear alun buffry, The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Legalise cannabis for medical and recreational use.”.

Government responded:
This Government has no plans to legalise cannabis. Raw cannabis is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit.
There is clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people’s mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities. The evidence from the Government’s independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), is that the use of cannabis is a ‘significant public health issue and can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society’.
The decriminalisation of drugs in the UK would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery this can cause to families and society. Decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.
When a police officer finds someone in possession of drugs, it is an operational matter as to the appropriate response. We have confidence in our police officers to assess as appropriate any enforcement action, where there is a public order or protection or local drug issue that needs addressing, rather than seek them out for drug possession offences. It is not always appropriate or conducive to the public good to arrest every person they find with a small amount of cannabis and although the police can charge individuals with a criminal offence, they can also issue a warning or an on-the-spot fine of £90 if an individual is found with cannabis.
It is important that medicines are thoroughly tested to ensure they meet rigorous standards before being placed on the market, so that doctors and patients are sure of their efficacy, quality and safety. There is a clear regime in place administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) to enable medicines (including controlled drugs such as cannabis) to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. For example, the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ has been granted Marketing Authorisation in the UK by the MHRA for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. Sativex was tested for its safety, efficacy and quality before receiving Marketing Authorisation approval for this application.
The MHRA is open to considering marketing authorisation approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed by a manufacturer. As happened in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine, providing it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.
We continue to monitor international developments on the evidence base around cannabis. The World Health Organisation’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has committed to reviewing the scheduling of cannabis under the UN’s 1961 Convention. This is due to consider the therapeutic use as well as dependence and the potential to abuse constituent parts of cannabis.
Home Office
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200021…
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament

Strange about the UK Governments, Cancer Research and cannabis? Oh how they tell lies.

 This nonsense below from Northern Ireland: IF indeed the possibility of harming some people was a good reason to prevent others from benefitting from a medicine, few medicines would be allowed.

"The Home Office said the government has no plans to legalise cannabis or change its approach to its use as medicine.

"The Minister for Preventing Abuse and Exploitation, Karen Bradley, said: "There is clear scientific and medical evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can damage people's mental and physical health, and harms individuals and communities."
 
Strange that claims that cannabis can halt or cure cancer have been made for over 40 years and NOW the big rich charity says they are now supporting "trials" using "cannabinoid-based drugs"

They OUGHT to have been demanding trials for many years - they ought to looked at the anecdotal evidence long before now - meanwhile many sick people have been facing "trials" of an entirely different and totally unjust manner.

"A spokesperson for Cancer Research UK said: "We know that cannabinoids - the active chemicals found in cannabis - can have a range of different effects on cancer cells grown in the lab and animal tumours.

"But at the moment there isn't good evidence from clinical trials to prove that they can safely and effectively treat cancer in patients.

"Cancer Research UK is supporting clinical trials for treating cancer with cannabinoid-based drugs in order to gather solid data on whether they benefit people with cancer."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-35545292?post_id=10205738696414460_10205738696334458#_=_

LINKS
END OUR PAIN CAMPAIGN

Even the US National Cancer Institute admits that cannabis kills cancer cells

 

US government says cannabis kills cancer cells 

US Government’s medical marijuana patent

Marijuana cures cancer; US government has known since 1974

Nick Clegg and the Rights of Doctors to Prescribe Cannabis for pain

Mr Clegg ought to wake up and start demanding that the government respect the human right to a private life, quality of life and personal beliefs and stop arresting those that have done no harm but choose to grow and possess cannabis in their homes - surely it should be about the Rights of all people, not the rights of doctors?

or does he or anyone think ill people should have greater rights than well people?

why should people have to go through a doctor to get a plant?

Nick Clegg: Give doctors the right to prescribe cannabis for those in real pain
Evening Standard, 21 January 2016

 

Thousands of Britons suffer from chronic conditions but face breaking the law to get treated. That must change 

 
Imagine being in constant pain, so much so that you can’t work, you can’t walk around town, you can’t lift things, you can’t even find a restful position to sleep in. Imagine that every medicine your doctor prescribes to you is either too weak to make a difference or comes with crippling side effects.
Now imagine knowing there is a medicine available that can ease your pain, allow you to work, move around relatively comfortably and help you sleep through the night. But there’s one downside: it’s illegal.
What do you do? Do you live with the agony and fatigue or break the law?
That’s the desperate dilemma that tens of thousands of British citizens face because it is illegal for doctors to prescribe medicinal forms of cannabis to their patients, despite mounting evidence that it can be an effective treatment for certain illnesses.
Last month, I met half a dozen young campaigners from the United Patients Alliance who suffer from a range of chronic conditions, including multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, arthritis and epilepsy. Each one was bright, articulate and desperate to be able to get on with their lives.
Faye, a corporate PA for a big company who was diagnosed four years ago with rheumatoid arthritis, is about as far away from the cliché of the layabout pothead as you can possibly imagine. An ambitious, outgoing and highly able young woman, the pain threatened to derail the career she had been building since the age of 16. She tried a number of prescription medicines but they came with a range of nasty side effects, from hair loss to constant nausea, that often left her too ill to work.
Four years later, her career is back on track. She makes her own cannabis-based skin cream that she can use at work, which has no psychoactive qualities and can easily be disguised so that no one knows she is using cannabis. To her colleagues, it looks like she simply keeps a small jar of normal hand cream on her desk. As a result, she told me that she can “live my life as I used to four years ago”. But she does so at great expense and at the risk of a criminal record. She is also forced to put herself into potentially difficult situations in order to obtain the cannabis she needs.
Kieran, a self-employed plasterer who has had epilepsy since he was a teenager, told me that cannabis massively reduced the frequency of his seizures. At its worst he could have five or six seizures a week but, thanks to cannabis, he has gone as long as a year without one in the past.

Jake, who was born with a diaphragmatic hernia, told me that he lives with such intense pain that a doctor once suggested he use methadone, the heroin substitute used to wean addicts off the drug. He was also prescribed Sativex, one of the very few cannabis-based medicines available in the UK, but found it wasn’t strong enough and acted only as an anti-spasmodic, not a pain reliever.
Weighing barely seven-and-a-half stone, “which is heavy for me”, he said cannabis not only eased his pain but had the added effect of helping him to keep his food down — a rare medical upside to getting the munchies — but it costs him an eye-watering £200 to £300 a week, a price so high that even with the financial support of well-wishers he is frequently left in chronic pain.
As they went around the table, each of these young campaigners told their own heartbreaking story. None of them want to break the law. None of them want to rely on drug dealers or fund organised crime. All want to work and live healthy, productive lives.
There is, of course, a much wider debate about cannabis and other drugs. My strong view is that we too often treat users and addicts as criminals to be punished, rather than people who need support. I want to see drug addiction treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice one. We should be putting our effort into going after the gangs who traffic and deal illegal drugs, not the people who use them.

'We should be putting our effort into going after the gangs who traffic and deal illegal drugs, not the people who use them'

Above all, we need to base drugs policy on the evidence of what works — and what the evidence shows is that a less draconian approach can have real health benefits. In Portugal, where those who are caught in possession  of drugs are directed into health or education services rather than the courts, there have been dramatic reductions in addiction, HIV infections and drug-related deaths. In other words, you don’t need criminal penalties in order to intervene and change people’s drug habits.
There are also a host of fascinating experiments happening in a number of US states — licensed outlets can sell cannabis legally for recreational use in Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska. In Uruguay, the state controls the production of cannabis and sells  it over the counter. British drugs reformers will watch these experiments closely to see how successful they can be in reducing drug use and health problems.
But while I hope we in Britain will eventually take a more enlightened approach towards drugs policy more generally, I accept that it will remain a controversial issue for the foreseeable future.
Whatever your views on wider drug use, however, one area where the time has surely come to move on is prescribing cannabis for medicinal purposes. That’s what already happens in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Israel and half the states in the US, so we would hardly be risk-taking pioneers.
Surely we can agree that doctors prescribing something as a medicine should be considered a separate matter entirely?
The young people I met deserve compassion and support, not criminal records or a lifetime of pain. Allowing doctors to prescribe cannabis to patients whose chronic pain cannot be adequately eased by other medicines is common sense. It’s time we made it legal to do so.

 http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nick-clegg-give-doctors-the-right-to-prescribe-cannabis-for-those-in-real-pain-a3161896.html

In Response to Tom Lloyd of the National Cannabis Coalition

Tom Lloyd (respect) wrote an article explaing why he feels it better to focus first on increasing availability of cannabis for medical purposes and below is my reply: 
https://tomclloyd.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/cannabis-for-medical-purposes-first-a-winning-strategy/

Hi Tom: in your article you say " achieving legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all is much more likely to be achieved sooner than legal access to cannabis for “recreational” purposes. " Thus perpetuating the myth that "recreational" use is not medically beneficial and that "medical users" do not take cannabis "recreationally" and furthermore that there should be some distinction in law and Human Rights between people that claim there use is purely one or the other, and you have neglected the religious or ritualistic, social users.

As I have said before, I know many people who may have called themselves recreational users but later in life realised medical benefits, myself included, as well as many of the leading campaigners; I also know people that use cannabis primarily for easing medical conditions who go on to use more cannabis simply to get high.

I do not understand, apart from the compassionate mitigation, why people should technically be regarded as a medical user up to the point where they get high, or a recreational user up to the point they relalise medical benefit or need. To me it unduly complicates matters.

In 1971 cannabis was banned as a medicine and one of the reasons given that it was being "misused" recreationally - hence the "Misuse of Drugs Act".

I can only see that the distinction when calling for medical cannabis will result in just that - more extracts and derivatives produced and marketted by pharmaceutical companies - as the Minister promised at the end of the cannabis debate in parliament recently.

You liken it to answering the questions you found easiest first, in exams. Yes we do that and for me it also worked well. But you say also "in case we run out of time". But surely there is no time-limit on repealing bad law? That cannot be a reason to focus on what "you" see as the easiest task first. To a person in dire medical need, clearly medical access is more important; to a man that has lost his freedom, job, maybe future career, insurance, travel experiences, maybe medical access is less important.

Certainly in The Netherlands, Portugal, Uruguay, now Jamaica and Canada, and some states and countries, "medical access" has not proceeded general law reform. In others it has.

But increasing medical access does not mean allowing people to grow their own, just as medical access to opiates has never eased the law on poppy cultivation and opium production.

Increasing medical access, if it comes first and leaves general decriminalisation behind, will whilst increasing the possibility of prescription products (noting how difficult it is for some people to get Sativex and the reluctance of even Dutch doctors to prescribe Bedrocan, will indeed remove the mitigation for those in dire medical need who cannot get the prescriptions and choose to grow their own, whilst leaving everybody else without the "acceptable" medical needs out in the cold.

An umbrella is supposed to protect us from the rain or sun. Should an umbrella be used to protect some first and hopefully come back later for the others, now wet (punished) when what we really want and need is an UMBRELLA THAT WILL COVER ALL.

Tom, you wrote "Frankly, it’s easier to arouse public empathy for a suffering child or disabled adult being helped by cannabis than it is for someone who “simply” wants to get stoned. That may not be fair, but it’s reality."

Yes it may well be easier to arouse public empathy for a UK suffering child than a foreign one stuck in the desert miles away, beyond our vision or experience, that not being fair but being a reality - but is it JUST? The easiest route, the route of less resistance, would be to sit and do nothing at all.

You wrote "successive governments have operated in an evidence-free zone. " That must be changed before any laws are being changed, not by any attempt to side-step, and that may well mean a new Government.

So how about a campaign based on Justice, or lack of it, when punishing a person for possession or cultivation for own use, where there are no victims, whatever the acclaimed reason for use, parallel for public empathy with a similar situation with, say, mint, or coffee? How about revealing the injustice in the punishments?

So in my life I chose to use cannabis - I suffer from no dreadful ailments as far as I know - I am not a follower of any religion or cannabis-ritual. Today I have a pain in my back, I use cannabis and the pain goes away. Tomorrow I have no pain, I use cannabis to get high. I know of no doctor outside of California that would give me a prescription for cannabis just because I woke up today with a pain in my back.

Fred has MS. He finds greater relief from smoking cannabis. He feels much better. He does not feel he needs cannabis right away for his MS. He decides to use cannabis to "get stoned" (another phrase for feel better). How should the law treat him if he is found growing cannabis?

Tom, you wrote "Once medical use of cannabis becomes widespread I’m sure that the resistance to consumption for all other purposes will fade much more quickly."

So is there a case where that has happened? I speak of opiates and opium again. Legal access to medical opiates has been with use for decades, yet it has led to no easing of the law on possession of opiates or heroin. Cocaine also. Amphetamines too.

In fact it has simply reinforced the false distinction between users and put the medicines firmly into the hands of profiteering drug companies.

You cannot have an umbrella group that appears not as an umbrella but simply as a campaign to enable sick people to get umbrellas prescribed by doctors whilst others get punished for even trying to make their own shelters from the storm.

Tom, respect what you are doing, retain your sympathy for those that are sick, but maybe more sympathy for all that have been, are being and will be, unjustly punished; until you have that sympathy we cannot expect the public to share it.

The pharmaceutical companies realise the potential profits just as did GW and their share-holders: I attended a share-holders meeting once, on behalf of another; there was no mention of cannabis medicines except GW's Sativex - it was ALL about money!

Those businesses have power to campaign for the legalisation and acceptance of their products, they do not need our help and they will not help us either - campaigning for general easing of the law could, if successful, bite into their profits if we can all legally grow our own.

I would like to see a group actively campaign, as a first step, for a halt to punishing people for possession or cultivation for own use unless there is a victim shown.

I believe that would be a true umbrella movement.

AS it stands, NORML, UPA, to some extent UKCSC and even CLEAR, dreadful as they are, focus mainly on medicinal users and NCC is running the risk of being seen as doing the same - it is in my opinion and umbrella group for medical cannabis campaigners and as such maybe should be looking for support in the drugs industry.




In reply to  https://tomclloyd.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/cannabis-for-medical-purposes-first-a-winning-strategy/

Cannabis for medical purposes first – a winning strategy?

Posted on 19 November 2015 by tomclloyd

One of the many things I have learned in my time as a drug policy adviser is that there is considerable room for improvement in the way in which we campaign for change. I could ponder the effectiveness of different tactics such as public demonstrations in the form of picnics, public consumption of cannabis to commemorate key dates and signing petitions. I could, but I won’t.   Instead I want to look at the aims of drug law reform with particular reference to cannabis and how best we can focus the campaign.
I’m pretty sure that we all want legal access to cannabis for adults and legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all. Of course, while closely linked, there are two clear and separate aims articulated in that vision for a better future. That presents us with options for developing a successful strategic approach; do we concentrate on both, or one at the expense of the other or do we time our efforts to deliver consecutive rather that concurrent impact? How best should we shape our campaigning strategy so that we achieve maximum change in minimum time?
Years ago, when sat for academic exams (with some success I modestly add!), I followed the wise advice from my father to read through all the questions, choose which ones to answer and then do the easiest ones first as your brain, subconsciously, got to grips with the harder ones. That system also meant that you didn’t run out of time, and lose certain marks, to write down the answers that you knew. In other words concentrate on the “easy” wins as a priority.
I see a real parallel in the campaign for cannabis law reform. In my view, and following the example of significant progress in the US, achieving legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all is much more likely to be achieved sooner than legal access to cannabis for “recreational” purposes. I do not say that one is more important than the other, although that could be argued, as both are about unjust restrictions on human behaviour, but I do say that aiming for an “easier” target makes sense provided it does not harm the chances of succeeding in the more challenging quest.
Although there is a growing body of evidence to show that prohibition is a hugely costly, counter-productive and harmful failure facts alone are not enough to deliver change; successive governments have operated in an evidence-free zone. We need to go further and engage with people’s imaginations, arouse their emotions and empathy through telling compelling stories about real people. Of course we have to marshal the facts to challenge the lies, myths and distortions of the past 40 or so years of media coverage but our approach should also appeal to emotion and compassion in order to deliver change. Frankly, it’s easier to arouse public empathy for a suffering child or disabled adult being helped by cannabis than it is for someone who “simply” wants to get stoned. That may not be fair, but it’s reality.
I know there will be some (many?) who will feel that a narrow strategy focusing on medical use alone would be a betrayal of the many millions who do not consume cannabis for medical reasons. My argument is that this approach will hasten, not slow, the opportunity for legal enjoyment of cannabis for the full range of reasons: enhanced spirituality, creativity and enjoyment of music for example, as well as for relaxation and calm. Think of it, perhaps, as a wedge driven into the wall of prohibition at its weakest point; bringing the whole edifice down with the minimum effort, maximum impact and in the shortest time.
A focused, determined campaign to achieve legal access to cannabis for medical purposes could unite the cannabis law reform movement, harness tremendous energy, expertise and commitment and, after decades of lack of progress, deliver the change we all want and need.
Once medical use of cannabis becomes widespread I’m sure that the resistance to consumption for all other purposes will fade much more quickly.
I’ll now stand back to await the cries of protest that I’m sure to have provoked…

UK Government caught out lying about the cannabis plant, again.

It is simply miraculous that GW Pharmaceuticals can make an expensive spray form of whole cannabis plant extract simply by dissolving the plant in alcohol and adding some flavour, when the plant itself in the UK is scheduled as having no medicinal uses.

Secondly it is sad that cannabis grown in the UK has no medicinal value yet in Holland the plant grown there has a medicinal value when grown by a pharmaceutical company, Bedrocan is irradiated and standardised cannabis bud.

In the US they have been giving cannabis joints for medicinal use to a small number of people for DECADES so why do they do that if they at teh same time also deny the medicinal properties.

Thirdly, until 1971, cannabis tincture was prescribed; in his herbal book Culpeper listed some medicinal uses and it has been known that it was used in ancient Egypt and China as a medicine, and Queen Victoria herself used the plant as a medicine.

So what had happened to make cannabis in the UK so useless as a medicine since 1971? Is there something wrong with our air or water or sunlight or soils?

The only change is in the law, of course, so the law no favours pharmaceutical companies that hold us to ransom by charging such high prices for their Sativex?

The Government says Sativex is available on prescription but it is actually available only to a few that can persuade their doctors and then many have to pay - so that is a blatant distortion of truth again.

There are countless reports from people that suffer terrifying ailments and find ease or even cures from the cannabis plant itself and it was that anecdotal evidence that led GW Pharmaceuticals to invest in and study the plant and its medicinal uses that the Government denies.

There is only one word to describe the Government response - LIARS! 

 

Government responded
Herbal cannabis is listed in Schedule 1 as a drug with no recognised medicinal uses outside research. A substantial body of scientific evidence shows it is harmful and can damage human health.

The Government will not encourage the use of a Schedule 1 controlled drug based on anecdotal evidence. It is important that a medicine is very thoroughly trialled to ensure it meets rigorous standards before being licensed and placed on the market so that doctors and patients are sure of its efficacy and safety.
Cannabis in its raw form (herbal cannabis) is not recognised as having any medicinal purposes in the UK. There is already a clear regime in place to enable medicines (including those containing controlled drugs) to be developed and subsequently prescribed and supplied to patients via healthcare professionals. This regime is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which issues Marketing Authorisations for drugs that have been tried and tested for their safety and efficacy as medicines in the UK.
It is up to organisations to apply for Marketing Authorisation for products that they believe have potential medicinal purposes so that these can be subject to the same stringent regime and requirements that all medicines in the UK are subjected to.
Since 2010 UK patients can use the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. ‘Sativex’ can also be prescribed for other conditions at the prescribing doctor’s risk. ‘Sativex’ was rigorously tested for its safety and efficacy before receiving approval, and is distinguished from cannabis in its raw form. It is a spray which is standardised in composition, formulation and dose and developed to provide medicinal benefits without a psychoactive effect. Due to its low psychoactive profile ‘Sativex’ was rescheduled from Schedule 1 and placed in Schedule 4 Part 1 to enable its availability for use in healthcare in the UK.
The MHRA is open to considering marketing approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed. As happened in the case of ‘Sativex’, the Home Office will also consider issuing a licence to enable trials of new medicines to take place under the appropriate ethical approvals.
In view of the potential harms associated with the use of cannabis in its raw form and the availability of avenues for medicinal development, the Government does not consider it appropriate to make changes to the control status of raw or herbal cannabis.
The Government’s view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and regulations made under the Act continue to facilitate the development of medicines which are made from Schedule 1 controlled drugs. The legislation is aimed at protecting the public from the potential harms of drugs and is not an impediment to research into these drugs or development of medicines.
In 2013 the Home Office undertook a scoping exercise targeted at a cross-section of the scientific community, including the main research bodies, in response to concerns from a limited number of research professionals that Schedule 1 status was generally impeding research into new drugs.
Our analysis of the responses confirmed a high level of interest, both generally and at institution level, in Schedule 1 research. However, the responses did not support the view that Schedule 1 controlled drug status impedes research in this area. While the responses confirmed Home Office licensing costs and requirements form part of a number of issues which influence decisions to undertake research in this area, ethics approval was identified as the key consideration, while the next most important consideration was the availability of funding.
Home Office

Arrest the cannabis medical growers??

How would you react if somebody came up to you in the street

shaking a collection tin and asking for a donation to help pay for the arrest and prosecution of sick and injured adults for growing a plant for their own beneficial use?

They would be armed with a list of ailments that it is claimed that cannabis helps - people to be targetted.

They would explain that there was no issue with them having harmed or put at risk other people.

There is no other (illegal to possess) drugs involved, and no supply to others.

They would be armed with the latest estimated costs of arrest and or courts, a breakdown of the total annual cost.

They would explain that since cannabis is against the law and police are becoming increasingly lenient or turning a blind eye to small growers as they have far more serious issues to deal with and are themselves underfunded, it is essential that people pay more money to finance more arrests and prosecutions above the billions in taxes.

They would explain that home grown cannabis used in those ways is a serious treat to the profits of the big phamaceutical companies that provide the present day prescription drugs that many growers are saying they have replaced with herbal cannabis.

Cannabis for Medical Use - Where to Draw the Line?

Well there seems to be some confusion here:  the heading says "legalise medical cannabis" but of course "medical cannabis" (Sativex, a whole plant extract: cannabis in alcohol) is already legal to supply here in the UK, under prescription especially In Wales.

More correctly, Pippa Bartolotti says "Cannabis should be legalised for medical use" which is agood statement but suggests that somebody somewhere will have to draw a line between when it is medical use and when it is  non-medical use and presumably Pippa is not talking about how that is going to be defined in law and what would be done with those that choose "non-medical" use, whatever that is.

Would we end up with a a section of ill and injued people being allowed to grow, buy and possess - and another lot of victimless people being prosecuted for the same activities?

 NO Victim NO CRIME, Justtice for Cannabis Justice for Cannabis Users, Equal Rights for all.

But at least Pippa has the bottle to speak up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32417548

Election 2015: Pippa Bartolotti's call to legalise medical cannabis

Cannabis should be legalised for medical use, according to Wales Green Party leader Pippa Bartolotti.

Ms Bartolotti will make the case for a change in approach in a speech at Cardiff University on Thursday night.
Legalising cannabis has been Green Party policy for some time.
Ms Bartolotti said: "No one has yet died from using cannabis, in fact the health benefits of cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy and cancer are already well documented."
She added: "Commercial organisations in the UK are already allowed to patent and sell cannabis extracts, whilst the population as a whole is criminalised for using it - even if it saves their life. This simply has to be changed."
Ms Bartolotti said cannabis is wrongly labelled as a gateway drug to harder substances like cocaine and heroin and it is the criminalisation of it which is the gateway.

No reason to punish people for using things to their benefit unless they harm others.

Almost everything is life can pose a risk to some people but that is no reason to punish other people for using things to their benefit unless they harm others. Punishing a person simply for growing or possession of a plant for their own use is a total misuse of law, injustice and breach of Human Rights that allow people a Private Life.

To punish a person such as Mr French, who claims to be using cannabis to alleviate dreadful pain an symptoms of MS would be an outrage, as it is that so many other victimless cannabis users have been and are being fined and even sent to prison.

There is now irrefutable medical evidence that cannabis has medicinal vale for a large number of ailments and evidence that risk is very small, far smaller than many pills prescribed by doctors - pills that often have side-effects that require other pills to counteract.

The side-effect of consuming cannabis is at best a feeling of relaxation and at worse the munchies.

In fact, The UK and other Governments, even though they deny that cannabis has any medicinal uses, now allow the production and sale of the whole-plant extract in the form of alcohol solution in a spray, called Sativex.

I have yet to see any explanation of how a medicine can be produced by simply dissolving and filtering a plant with no medicinal use, in alcohol!

And in Netherlands and other countries, cannabis bud is available on a doctors' prescription and bought at pharmacies.

Unfortunately the law gives monopoly to the pharmaceutical companies and unfortunately there products are far more expensive than the cost of growing the cannabis at home or even buying in Dutch Coffeeshops.

But what it boils down to for me - irrespective of benefit or risk of harm through use - why should the law punish people that engage in activities that do no harm or pose no risk to others or their rights?


Call for cannabis legalisation at Portsmouth event
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/health/local-health/call-for-cannabis-legalisation-at-portsmouth-event-1-6529353 
The News Portsmouth, 19 January 2015

WE must fight to legalise cannabis for the sake of improving our lives.

That was the message yesterday from people with a range of health problems who revealed that taking the drug means they are not left in constant pain.

Patients were given the opportunity to share their experiences during an open discussion on the topic of cannabis legalisation at Fratton Community Centre, in Portsmouth.

Clark French, 29, of Brighton, who was diagnosed with MS five years ago, said taking cannabis has eased the chronic pain that comes with the disease.
He told the audience: ‘MS is an awful disease, it’s horrible, I can’t even bring about the words to explain it.

‘I am in pain all the time.
‘When I use cannabis however, I am in less pain.
‘It doesn’t take the pain away completely, but cannabis gives me a life again and gives me the ability to stand up and share my story.’
Mr French, of United Patients Alliance, which set up the event, added: ‘It’s not right that it is not legal – we need to get together and fight.
‘It’s not cannabis we are fighting for, but our lives.’
Angela Came, 44, of Petersfield, said the drug helps her cope with depression, psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder.
‘I didn’t start taking it until after I was diagnosed and I didn’t start taking it regularly until two years ago,’ she said.
Mel Clarke, 53, of Southsea, who has MS, said smoking cannabis has changed her life whereas painkillers ended up doing more harm.
Mrs Clarke said she first smoked cannabis on a trip to Amsterdam.
Alex Fraser, 24, who was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease at 19, said while critics may feel he should just take legal painkillers, they make his condition worse.
‘There are a lot of things I can’t eat, I can’t drink, there’s a whole list. And I know that what I do eat, it’s still going to be hard,’ he said.
‘If I smoke a joint or smoke a joint after a meal, I feel so much better.’

Prohibitionsists seeking medicalisation of plants v No Victim No Crime

Prohibitionists are campaigning to try to keep a residual prohibition law by working towards "medicalisation" - allowing a limited number of patients selected by doctors to obtain cannabis extracts or irradiated and standardised product to obtain cannabis on prescription at grossly inflated prices and profits for the pharmaceutical giants thus removing the possibility of anyone caught growing in ppossession to use medical need in mitigation or defence.

Anyone without a prescription could still be busted if caught growing or in possession - just like many other prescription medications.

Strangely enough there are no health warnings on Sativex or Bedrocan

Prohibitionists stooping low claiming cannabis is as addictive and dangerous as heroin, that it does not increase creativity, causes paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, impotence, baldness, loss of memory, loss of motivation, is a gateway to hard drugs and so on

We are argue with them 'til blue cheese in the face.

Point I make is that EVEN IF any of that is true for even one user - all the more reason for consumer protection but no reason to punish that person (those people) that suffer bad effects and certainly NO REASON to punish the rest of us.

In the name of Justice = no victim no crime

Wake up folks!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-Victim-NO-CRIME/257914584389417

CENSORED: 1947 Cannabis Study on Epilepsy

It seems to be the pattern for governments that clearly favour synthetics and pharmaceuticals over plants. From the times of the ancient Chinese and ancient Egyptians through Romans and Culpeper's Herbal until 1971 cannabis was used as a medicine. But in 1961 and then in 1971 in the UK, cannabis was suddenly deemed to have no medical uses and possession, cultivation etc was banned. Nowadays Bedrocan is grown and sold through pharmacies in Netherlands and prescribed in other countries, Sativex a whole-plant extract marketted almost worldwide (both produced by pharmaceutical companies, pharmers, not farmers), as a medicine is now available in many US States and in fact USA has been supplying it to a very few patients for decades whilst all the time burning crops, arresting growers and claiming it has no medical use in international treaties and many country's national legislation. That reveals the hypocrisy and corruption of the governments we have elected.

please see  http://weedfinder.com/dash/news/censored-1947-cannabis-study-on-epilepsy/

PIGS - The Enemies of Legalisation?

P is for paranoia and fear of persecution. This prevents cannabis users and non-users with a huge barrier to overcome before they can publicly speak out against prohibition. Users fear raids from the police and arrest, loss of employment and even imprisonment. Many professional people such as Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, Probation Officers, Social Workers etc, although privately supporting legalisation or some lesser form of change in law, are afraid of persecution from people in power and the press. MP's of all parties can be silenced and pressurised to change their statements, by the Party Whips. Many Doctors quietly advise patients that cannabis is of possible benefit to them but will not make a public statement on the issue. If you are one of those professionals please speak out and help call an end to the suffering caused to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the UK, every year, under the inefficient and expensive attempts at suppressing freedom of choice, in general, cannabis in particular. If you are a user, fear not, for to express an opinion on the law is not an offense and does not indicate that you are a user. Many non-users advocate legalisation too.

I is for indifference and for ignorance. Many non-users and people who are stigmatised or victimised by society through illness, poverty, lifestyle, belief or riches and power, remain unconcerned or unaware of the disastrous social and environmental effects of prohibition. These people need to be awoken. Many of them are on drugs - heroin addicts, alcoholics, Valium addicts, alcoholics and at all rungs of the social ladder; they just don't care. But others do care, they just either don't know or don't know what they can do. It is up to activists to educate and guide these people to the postbox and the ballot boxes. Then, when they do care, we need to reassure them to avoid them slipping into the description of P.

G is for greed. These are the highly profit-motivated suppliers of illegal cannabis, often of dubious quality, and those directors (and their minions) of the multinational corporations that profit by billions from their environmentally damaging synthetic and dangerous alternatives. These include petroleum companies who risk losses if hemp seed oil becomes widely available; pharmaceutical companies who would lose out if people take less of their synthetic drugs and more home grown cannabis and including those that now make massive; profits from cannabis products such as “Sativex”; producers of plastics and synthetic materials - products that could be replaced locally from locally grown cannabis; nuclear fuel and fossil fuel companies whose products could also be replaced by locally grown cannabis, far more efficiently and cheaply than for all modern fuels; timber companies who fear that cannabis would replace wood as a material for furnishing as well as paper and packing materials; breweries and tobacco companies who fear that the use of home grown cannabis would decrease the sales of their highly dangerous legal drugs; national and international criminal and terrorist organisations who profit from illegal cannabis, possibly even the secret services of certain countries (not yours, of course); police, solicitors, barristers, judges and prison staff, with all the associated industry at colossal public expense, who may be out of a job is 250,000 less people are searched and 100,000 less prosecuted, annually.

S is for squabblers and for separation.. Those people who continually insist upon arguing over matters of minor or academic differences which distract from the general cause of delay action towards the consensus aim of legalisation. Such arguments are divisive and unproductive, often originating from personal grievances. Some times such arguments are introduced by insincere campaigners, even infiltrators from corners supporting prohibition, whose aim is to suppress by division and mistrust. Other times the arguments may be prolonged by sincere people. When the squabble, due to personal grievances, interferes with actions of the general movement for legalisation, or any particular event or group, then the squabblers become enemies of the movement.

Don't be any part of PIGS. Wake up, learn, act, cooperate, become involved in this movement which is all about freedom of choice, lifestyle and religion. It is about the very rights granted by the United Nations Charters. Prohibition of cannabis is a prolonged attempt at mis-education and tyrannical control, and must be resisted by the masses.

PUNISHING ADULTS BECASUE OF WHAT KIDS MAY DO DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

BBC 2's ! "America's Stoned Kids" with addiction expert John Marsden was as disappointing as his previous documentaries on cannabis - pretty one-sided, he focussed more on one or two teenagers (called kids) and the risk that he put at one in four would carry on using cannabis which he calls dependency.

After showing the availability of medicinal cannabis he twisted it to show how readily available cannabis is to teenagers (as it is in most places where there is no medical availabilty).

Marsden tried to use the scare-mongering idea that if cannabis is avaialble legally to adults, more "kids" would become addicted and then used that to oppose legalisation - he completely ignored the pain and suffering cause by prohibition and unjust punishment.

How can he try to justify punishing victimless and medicinal users, argue against legal controlled commercial supply and cultivation of one's own cannabis because "kids" risk their health and safety?

Because the argument that adults should be punished or put at risk - forced to deal with ciminal suppliers or break the law by cultivating the plant because of what the kids do - if followed as a principle upon which to base laws, then adults would be banned from doing anything that could be harmful to young people. Drinking, driving, ....

It's obvious to me that both kids and aults are at greater risk if they are left at the mercy of less-than-scrupulous and criminal drug dealing profiteers than they would be at risk of a regulated supply system with quality control, credible point-of-sale advice, hygiene, age restrictions and tax on profits.

As for the closing sequence in which John Marsden shows cannabis cookies and sweets - an alternative was to smoking cannabis - and complains that they may be attractive to the kids so ought not be allowed - that sort of logic made nonsense of the whole show,

Sheriff Prefers People to Suffer Rather Than Use Cannabis

Can somebody please point me to any Justice in this case?

So a man grows a few cannabis plants in his own home for his own use in topping up his prescribed medication to try to ease the pain in his back (spondylitis), and the Sheriff forces him into unpaid work and tells him “I trust you now realise you can’t do this."

Then, on top of the unpaid work, he gives him £100 fine for £150 worth of cannabis and one plant.

Where are these judges, sheriffs and magistrates at?

What are they thinking?

Have they no compassion?

For some cannabis, this may just be a fine and forced labour - for others they get the fine, the labour and the pain.

I ask again - can anybody point me to the justice in these cases - or is it simply an attempt to make people stay within an unjust law?

Man grew cannabis for health reasons
Oct 12 2012 by Colin Rutherford, Kilmarnock Standard

A Kilmarnock man who grew cannabis for health reasons has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.

At Kilmarnock Sheriff Court last week, 28-year-old Michael Boland pleaded guilty to producing the class B drug at his home in MacKinlay Place last month.

He was also fined £100 for possessing cannabis on the same occasion.

Scott Toal, prosecuting, said that police went to Boland’s home at 9.40am with a search warrant.

He was asked if he had any drugs in the house and “told police that he was a user and had some personal”.Boland pointed to a box and said that he had some more in a cupboard.

Police found cannabis in a box in the livingroom and discovered more in a plastic tub and in two jars.

Said Mr Toal: “The rest of the house was searched and items used in the production of cannabis recovered.”These included plant food, lights and a foil growing tent.

The cannabis found was worth a total of £150.

Boland was interviewed at Kilmarnock police station and accepted that he had grown the cannabis that police had recovered.

Said Mr Toal: “He said he used it as pain relief for a medical condition.”

Paul Gallagher, defending, told the court that his client had suffered from the back condition spondylitis for around three years.

“This is a case where he has been topping up with medication not prescribed,” said the solicitor.
His position was that he grew only one plant at a time.

Rather than have to go out and look for the drug, “he took matters into his own hands”, said Mr Gallagher.

Sheriff Iona McDonald noted that Boland had no similar previous convictions, with only one minor matter on his record, and told him: “I trust you now realise you can’t do this.”

http://www.kilmarnockstandard.co.uk/ayrshire-news/news-east-ayrshire/kilmarnock-news/2012/10/12/man-grew-cannabis-for-health-reasons-81430-32004753/

Man who grew cannabis as pain-relief sentence reduced but still unjustly locked up

Although I welcome the reduction in sentence, truth is that Matthews seems to have harmed nobody and simply tried to ease his pains with a plant he found effective and that he could grow in the privacy of his own home - NOBODY ELSE WAS INVOLVED.

I find it remarkable that courts, the legal profession and journalists alike do not seem to realise the difference between some form of medical dependency and addiction.

All people that take medication to treat the symptoms of illness or accident are dependent upon the medication until they either recover or it is replaced by something more effective.

The result of stopping the medication is usually a return of or worsening of the symptoms or pain.

Addiction, however, is completely different, depending upon the addictiveness of the substance and the person.

Stopping use of an additive drug is usually accompanied by withdrawal symptoms - new problems that were not there before the drug was taken.

I very much doubt that Matthews was a cannabis addict as cannabis itself is not an addictive drug.

One thing is quite obvious though - sending him to prison will not (has not) help his whether or not be was dependent or addicted!

Sending a person to prison for doing something to ease suffering of self - such being that there was somebody else involved - is simply unjust.

Had Matthews been suffering from MS, had he been living in certain parts of the country (some NH areas refuse to prescribe) - he may have been prescribed cannabis in the form of an expensive extract called Sativex, also containing alcohol that brings its own problems for some people.

And guess what!

Sativex is simply cannabis in a liquid spray form, contains all the chemicals found in the plant - but just about 20 times more expensive

Jail term cut for back pain man who grew own cannabis
By Stuart Richards, April 24, 2012, Get Surrey

A MAN who grew cannabis in his loft and used the drug as a painkiller for chronic back problems has been granted a reduction in his prison sentence.
Pro-cannabis campaigner Winston Matthews, 55, of Upfield Close, Horley, took his case to the Court of Appeal last Thursday (April 19) and had his jail term cut from 16 to 12 months.
The appeal court heard that Matthews - who previously admitted breaching a suspended sentence, three counts of cultivating cannabis and two of possessing the drug - was due to receive a deferred sentence at Guildford Crown Court in February, so he could get help for his addiction, but was instead sent to prison after saying he would "struggle" not to take cannabis.
But senior judges have now reduced the sentence, ruling that the original term was "too long".
Judge Paul Batty QC, sitting with Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Spencer, said Matthews was first given a suspended sentence in August 2010 after 56 cannabis plants were found in his home.
His flat was searched by police later that month, and again in December that year, and a further 42 plants were discovered during those two raids.
Matthews was told he would receive a deferred sentence, in order to give him a chance to find alternative pain relief and stop using cannabis.
But, speaking directly to Judge Christopher Critchlow at Guildford Crown Court on February 3 this year, Matthews said he could not guarantee that he would stop using cannabis to alleviate his pain.
He was jailed three days later by Judge Suzan Matthews, who said she had no other option but to send him to prison due to his "persistent" offending.
Challenging the 16-month jail term last week, Matthews' lawyers argued Judge Matthews did not take enough account of his physical and mental problems which had led to him using cannabis for pain relief.
Barrister Ben Cooper said his client grew his own drugs in order to "bypass" criminals and used cannabis because he had chronic back pain, following an accident as a teenager, and a depressive illness.
Mr Cooper said Matthews was not eligible for a cannabis-based prescription drug as it is currently only given to Multiple Sclerosis sufferers, but that he had taken steps towards finding a lawful alternative form of pain relief.
Judge Batty said Matthews did deserve to go to prison, but that the sentence should have been shorter as it was his first jail term.
He added: "Even where cultivation is for the defendant's own use then custody is almost inevitable. The courts have tried and tried again so far as this appellant is concerned to avoid a custodial sentence.
"No matter what the personal mitigation may be, the time has to come at some point when custody cannot be avoided and that time has come for this appellant.
"That said, this is the appellant's first sentence of imprisonment and we have sympathy for his position.
"We think it is possible to slightly mitigate the length of the sentence without in any way criticising the perfectly proper approach the judge took in this case."

Man who tried to grow cannabis in his shed for medical reasons unjustly punished

What an atrocious waste of police time and public funds and what a terrible injustice even taking this man to court.

Although a curfew is not exactly a harsh punishment, it is still too much.

This man does not appear to have done any harm or posed any risk, growing his medicinal plants in his private dwelling.

Now I guess he will have to do without the natural and safe pain-relieving effects of plants and turn to risky and expensive pharmaceutical preparations.

Surely the Misuse of Drugs Act was not meant to stop people growing plants for their own beneficial use.

We need to see the law changed and the medicinal value of raw and natural cannabis recognised in the UK as it has been in so many other countries.

Man tried to grow cannabis in his shed for medical reasons
Thisislancashire, April 16 2012

A MAN who attempted to grow 80 cannabis plants in his garden shed was cultivating the crop in order to deal with a medical condition, a court heard.
When police visited Derek Doherty’s home in Parkfield Avenue, New Bury, they found a propagator tray full of seedlings hidden behind a partition in the shed.
Joseph Allman, prosecuting, told Bolton Crown Court on Friday it was an “extremely amateurish set-up” with no high-wattage lighting, ventilation or irrigation usually associated with cannabis farms.
Scrap dealer Doherty, aged 41, told police he usually smokes five cannabis cigarettes a day and spends up to £20 a week on buying the drug.
Richard Dawson, defending, added that the attempt to grow the drug, which was to be for his own use, was “doomed to failure.”
He said: “In a cold, dark outside shed, in all likelihood the plants would have withered away.”
The court heard that Doherty, who pleaded guilty to producing cannabis, has received a caution for a similar offence a few months earlier, but was using cannabis in order to help alleviate pain in his leg caused by a road traffic injury.
Judge John Appleby sentenced Doherty to be electronically monitored and observe a 7pm to 7am curfew for four months.

No Justice for Medicinal Cannabis Grower in pain

A very sad day for British Justice locking up a man that has clearly done now harm to anyone, just for growing a plant to ease his terrible suffering - like so many cannabis users now a victim of the law.

Given that he was growing cannabis for his own use and nobody outside his house would have been involved, I must ask what Right the police had to raid him in the first place?

We all have a Right to a Private Life, irrespective of what we choose to do in it, so long as we do not harm or risk public health, public order, national security of the Rights of others. How was Winston Matthews doing that? He wasn't.
The fact that what he was doing was against the law is not enough to give the police the right to interfere with hsi private life - Human rights law is quite clear on that.
It must be in the interests of law AND of protecting public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. How was arresting and punishing Matthews justifiable then?
And how much did all these raids and court cases and days in prison and medication going to cost the public?
All in the name of what? Hardly Justice!

Pro-cannabis campaigner fails to overturn sentence

By Ben Endley
March 26, 2012

A PRO-CANNABIS campaigner who was jailed last month after repeatedly refusing to stop growing the drug has failed to convince a top judge he was too harshly punished.

Winston Matthews, 55, was handed a 10-month sentence at Guildford Crown Court on February 6 after he admitted producing, cultivating and possessing the drug - which he insists is his only relief from chronic back pain and hepatitis C.

Scores of cannabis plants had been found growing at his home in Upfield Close, Horley, by police and Matthews was also given another six months for breaching the terms of an earlier suspended sentence - making a total 16-month term.

Matthews, a former member of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), stood for election as MP for East Surrey in 2005 however few voters shared his pro-cannabis stance and he finished in last place with 410 votes.

At London's Appeal Court on Thursday (March 22), his barrister, Ben Cooper, argued the sentence did not take enough account of his troubled background and the fact he was using cannabis to "self-medicate" in the privacy of his own home.

The barrister said Matthews had "stood for Parliament on a cannabis footing" and had been using the drug to deal with his pain for many years. Mentally and physically dependent on the drug, prison was "extremely hard" on him, the court heard.

Mr Cooper added that Matthews, who fractured his spine in a workplace accident when he was just 16, never supplies cannabis to anyone else, grows his own to avoid drug dealers and every leaf he cultivates is for his own personal use.
He found cannabis "far more effective" in relieving his pain than conventional medicines and, having turned his back on other substance abuse, "only uses cannabis because he wants to live a pain free life.

"He was using cannabis on a fairly large scale on a daily basis but he simply cultivates enough plants to keep him going", he told Mr Justice Haddon-Cave.

He does not qualify for prescription of cannabis-based drugs often given to multiple sclerosis sufferers and needs specialist help to "break his cycle of offending", Mr Cooper added.

However, refusing to release Matthews on bail or grant him permission to appeal, the judge said he had indicated at the Crown Court that he "would continue to cultivate cannabis come hell or high water".

Observing that Matthews is "something of a campaigner in this regard", the judge added: "He is a recidivist and he's not above the law just because he has personal reasons for using it".