Tuesday, 16 February 2016

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!!

Saturday, 13 February 2016

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.



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."

Thursday, 11 February 2016

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."



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

US Government’s medical marijuana patent

Marijuana cures cancer; US government has known since 1974