Cannabis Justice and Rights Campaigning

What I would like to see:

OUR Human Rights to grow cannabis and possess cannabis in our Private Lives acknowledged: that is, legal home grown.

OUR Human Rights to choose and practice our personal belief or religion alone or with others to be acknowledged

To me that means:

an end to the prosecution / punishment of people growing or in possession of cannabis for their own use or social sharing

AND

Licensed commercial outlets for quality controlled cannabis for adults with tax on profits and consumer protection regulations and consumption allowed on the premises with the owners permission, similar to Dutch Coffeeshops - cannabis "off-licenses" also ; all with consumer protection and tax on profits

AND

Licensed non-profit private member club premises where cannabis consumers can gather in safety to buy and consume cannabis and socialise. These could be limited to members only and no advertising, with age restrictions (similar to Spanish Private Clubs)

AND

Legal and transparent profit-free collective growing clubs

AND

Natural cannabis and cannabis products to be available free through the doctor's prescription ND NHS

SOME PEOPLE may say that I am a dreamer, sure, that we will never get all that or not for decades at least, that it is asking too much at once ...

But am a CAMPAIGNER who prefers to campaign for what he feels is Right and Just, not based on public opinion or political correctness or even viability..

At 66, who knows how long I have left to see my dream come true.

I consider myself very fortunate not to be bound by the policies or opinions of others.

Cannabis: Medicalisation and Restriction of Rights.

It seems to me that recently more people are saying that they use cannabis solely or primarily as a medicine as if that should give them to right to do something that other people don't have the right to do: many live under the illusions that a "medical cannabis" campaign will lead to legalisation to grow our own cannabis.

 

Take a look at, for example, opium, a class A drug: medical opium = opiates has been available through doctors and pharmacies for many decades, yet the right to grow ones own poppies and make ones own opium, whether for medicine or not, is still ignored by the law.

 

Once the pharmaceutical giants jump on board the medical cannabis bandwagon, there will be plenty of extracts and other products from cannabis available if one can find a doctor willing to prescribe (many doctors in Holland, even, will not). But unlike Holland, we may not have coffeeshops.

 

Then there will be no "excuse", no mitigation, for people that grow.

 

BOTTLE is needed.

 

Groups and individuals need to put themselves aside for a time and all campaign for Justice and equal Rights for all - the right to a private life, to practice our beliefs (alone or with others), the right to property -- for everyone.

 

THEN and only then will those who consider their need to be primarily medicinal relief will be able to grow their own. cannabis.

 

THEN commercial outlets for all adults will follow, with quality control, consumer protection and tax of profits. 

 

THEN doctors will start to issue prescriptions.

 

Pharmaceutical medical cannabis is:

(a) already here (eg Sativex) and 

(b) inevitable.

 

Let the pharmaceutical companies campaign for their profits and by all means advertise medical needs, but don't call that legalisation.

In the name of Justice and equal Rights for all - stop the prosecutions for cannabis.

You know, if they legalised cannabis for all adults, there would be no need to campaign for medical access. depend on ailment and the doctor's opinions (now all doctors in The Netherlands will prescribe Bedrocan cannabis and when they do, it costs more than from the coffeeshop and choice is limited). So we would still have to campaign for everyone else.

What about the children?

Well they would not of course be able to buy if they are not old enough assuming an age restriction, but parents can buy for the older teenagers just as they can legally buy and supply alcohol for them. (the child's age after which parents can legally supply alcohol tothem is 5)

As for medicine for the young - just like other medicines that will be possible of prescription from a doctor.

Once outlets for adults and home growing are legalised, pharmacies and health / herb shops will also be able to supply.

It will save on police and court time, raise taxes on profits, enable hygienic production, packaging and supply with indications of strain and strength, enable credible information and advice at point-of-sale, separate supply from hard drugs, enable consumer protection, increase employment and of course vastly improve access for cannabis as a medicine, relaxant, sacrament ... it will realise our Human Rights and introduce a Just regime for cannabis.

If we all joined together and campaign for everyone, I think we would make more progress over the next few years.

Of course some people will pessimistically speculate "the government won't do that" - well they certainly won't for much longer if people do not unite and put on the pressure!!

Drop the skunk and raise the Justice

Richard Branson thinks skunk is worse than alcohol but hash is safer.

Hash is made from cannabis; the stronger the cannabis and the stronger the hash, if it is made carefully and cleanly; hash is usually stronger, more concentrated, than the plant used to make it.

Skunk was a name given to one particular hybrid which has now been used extensively to produce other hybrids.

The ratio of THC and CBD differs in different strains and hybrids, of bud and of hash made from it.

Some people prefer higher or lower levels of THC and CBD - over the last decade or two, strains with high THC and lower levels of CBD were introduced into a market that was thought to want high THC even at the "cost" of CBD.

THC and CBD are just two cannabinoids in cannabis and have different effects.

More recently, the advantages for many people of the higher CBD level plants has encouraged breeders to change their plants to other strains.

That has nothing to do with the fact that cannabis production and supply are illegal - it has happened also in Holland and countries where cannabis is available.

To suggest that "skunk" is as bad as alcohol is just ignorance - what type of alcohol; what quantity - what type of consumer?

The effects of cannabis are a result of set and setting; yes the chemical constituents, yes the quantity, yes the surroundings, but also very importantly the mental state and mood of the consumer; also whether it is eaten, smoked or vaporised or used with tobacco.

For sure, the variety of cannabis strains available is less under prohibition than where supply is legal or tolerated (USA, Spain, Holland, for example). People have less choice and are more likely to be offered be offered contaminated cannabis or cannabis of unknown strength, or even other drugs, under prohibition. But in those places many users still choose the high THC low CBD varieties that others may not.

There is no way to protect consumers under prohibition and prohibition actually increases risk of and actual harm.

BUT IS ANY OF THAT RELEVANT TO THE LAW?

To the question: SHOULD A DRUG USER BE PUNISHED IF THEY HAVE DONE NO HARM?

Unless legalisation includes controls on strains, which would not make sense, it would not stop the stronger varieties being sold but would give people more choices.

No Victim No Crime; Justice for cannabis users. Drop the word skunk."

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/the-dangers-of-skunk-and-live-events?fb_action_ids=959761417423699&fb_action_types=og.comments

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

For your entertainment: ALL ABOUT MY HAT - THE MOVIE - THE HIPPY TRAIL 1972

Myhat and I present a short movie for your entertainment

https://youtu.be/kv35xv-Okvw

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

Warmongers - #NOTINMYNAME STOP BOMBING SYRIA

As far as I am concerned they can all think what they like, say what they like, write what they like and all based on their beliefs, just so long as they don't pretend to be my friends.

You all must know my feelings by now - warmongers are not my friends any more than are murders.

I passed through Syria in 1972, a long time ago, and found people mostly hospitable and friendly if not wealthy. It is mostly desert towns with just a few larger cities. 

I crossed the border to Iraq and arrived at the village of  Al Qa'im, which has been totally destroyed and is now army barracks and oil worker accommodation; they villagers there, simple folk, showed great hospitality and generosity to what must have seemed weirdo's from the West. Baghdad was also a great place. 

I think many of the people I met are either dead or refugees now. 

Over the last few decades, Syria let in millions of refugees fleeing from the bombs in Iraq and troubles in Turkey, Lebanon and so on. 

Now they and their hosts have been scared by all sides so that they flee again. All sides knew that would happen. That is what was happening was no reason to kill and scare them even more.

The so-called terrorists are on all sides, the Syrian government, external governments from thousands of miles away now overhead bombing them, the ISIS or whatever name we want to give them, It's as if they are trying to clear Syria of people. It is an important stepping stone to oil and what the West seeks is that steeping stone.

There have been terror attacks in many countries in the world, so often committed by people from the very same countries they kill in. We bomb or do not bomb based purely on a semi-hidden but obvious agenda that our government and seemingly opposition parties support.

When you see UK troops on the streets of one if not the most surveyed spied upon countries in the world, housing and protecting the super-rich whilst people sleep on the streets with benefits removed, inadequate schooling and health care, where most of the people live in fear of somebody and the vast majority do not support their government...

...then that is a tyranny, then you will surely know that it has never been the IRA, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, Qaddafi, IS, or anyone outside the UK that has caused the problems. 

It has always been the UK and other Governments. Now they call it war, yet the "rules" of war are irrelevant because we are not at war against Syria; we are just bombing them for our own reasons and it is clear enough that Cameron either does not himself really understand or that he is simply telling porkies.

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