By continuing to support cannabis prohibition laws, politicians and others are:

By continuing to support cannabis prohibition laws, politicians and others are::

unduly interfering with the Human Rights of a Private Life and choice and practice of belief, contrary to Human Rights laws

enabling criminal organisations and even terrorist groups to make huge tax-free profits from sales

creating unnecessary obstacles for people in need of good quality and clean cannabis

driving people that fear the consequences of growing cannabis in their homes into the hands of uncontrollable, often unscrupulous and dangerous and untaxed suppliers and criminal gangs

putting at risk the health and wellfare of victimless cannabis consumers

opening the gateway to hard drugs through dealers

putting children at risk - illegal dealers usually have no agree restrictions

punishing people that have done no harm to others

costing the public purse many millions of pounds annually through the cost of policing, court proceedings and prisons

unduly preventing and alienating those criminalised from taking certain jobs, renting accommodation, obtaining insurance and limiting travel.

enabling huge profits for shareholders such as the spouses of government ministers through businesses such as British Sugar, GW Pharmaceuticals - such as the husbands of Victoria Aitkins and Theresa May.

Putting at risk many people that have no alternative than prescription pharmaceutical drugs t=and that could be using cannabis.

Stifling research into the many benefits of cannabis such as its environmentally-friendly and safe utilisation as a source of fuels, plastics, solvents, paints, cloth and medicine

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064323926142

Dreaming of Hemp

Last night I had a dream that I was on a bus explaining to some people all the uses of the cannabis plant, at first not naming it; the value as a fibre as a source of clothing, platic, paper, packaging, canvas, rope, as a fuel and lubricant and the seed as a source of nutrition, and as a medicine;

I explained how it was easy to grow and harvest almost anywhere without fertilisers or pesticides and that it was environemnetally friendly and biodegradable, even the burning of the fuels releasing only the CO" and H"O absobed during the growing.

I remember it went on a while. I said it wa a shame it needed an expsnsive license to grow and they were hard to get. 

Then, in the dream, I said it was a plant called cannabis. A couple of passengers commented like ha! yes that's why it's banned, because cannabis is addictive and leads to hard drugs and can cause lung problems and cancer and it's dangerous for kids.

"Ha!" I said, "you have fallen into my trap! Because it's also called hemp. Cannabis is just the botanical name. Cos cannabis usually has THC which gets people high and makes them feel good, and hemp, the same plant but a different varierty and usually grown taller, has avery very low amount of THC and you'd have to smoke a field full to get any effect. 

"So even if what you said about THC-cannabis was true, which it's not, hemp is not dangerous at all. So why do the same laws limit and stop people from growing hemp as they do for cannabis? Could it be anything to do with the profits big business makes by controlling our supply of fuels and plastics and pharmaceutical drugs?"

Then the bus stopped and we had to get off. Then I woke up.

Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System

 Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System

Dustin Sulak, DO, Healer.com

As you read this review of the scientific literature regarding the therapeutic effects of cannabis and cannabinoids, one thing will become quickly evident: cannabis has a profound influence on the human body. This one herb and its variety of therapeutic compounds seem to affect every aspect of our bodies and minds. How is this possible?

At our integrative medical clinics in Maine and Massachusetts, my colleagues and I treat over 18,000 patients with a huge diversity of diseases and symptoms. In one day I might see cancer, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, insomnia, Tourette syndrome and eczema, just to name a few. All of these conditions have different causes, different physiologic states, and vastly different symptoms. The patients are old and young. Some are undergoing conventional therapy. Others are on a decidedly alternative path. Yet despite their differences, almost all of my patients would agree on one point: cannabis helps their condition.

As a physician, I am naturally wary of any medicine that purports to cure-all. Panaceas, snake-oil remedies, and expensive fads often come and go, with big claims but little scientific or clinical evidence to support their efficacy. As I explore the therapeutic potential of cannabis, however, I find no lack of evidence. In fact, I find an explosion of scientific research on the therapeutic potential of cannabis, more evidence than one can find on some of the most widely used therapies of conventional medicine.

At the time of this writing (February 2015), a PubMed search for scientific journal articles published in the last 20 years containing the word “cannabis” revealed 8,637 results. Add the word “cannabinoid,” and the results increase to 20,991 articles. That’s an average of more than two scientific publications per day over the last 20 years! These numbers not only illustrate the present scientific interest and financial investment in understanding more about cannabis and its components, but they also emphasize the need for high quality reviews and summaries such as the document you are about to read.

How can one herb help so many different conditions? How can it provide both palliative and curative actions? How can it be so safe while offering such powerful effects? The search to answer these questions has led scientists to the discovery of a previously unknown physiologic system, a central component of the health and healing of every human and almost every animal: the endocannabinoid system.

What Is The Endocannabinoid System?

The endogenous cannabinoid system, named after the plant that led to its discovery, is perhaps the most important physiologic system involved in establishing and maintaining human health. Endocannabinoids and their receptors are found throughout the body: in the brain, organs, connective tissues, glands, and immune cells. In each tissue, the cannabinoid system performs different tasks, but the goal is always the same: homeostasis, the maintenance of a stable internal environment despite fluctuations in the external environment.

Cannabinoids promote homeostasis at every level of biological life, from the sub-cellular, to the organism, and perhaps to the community and beyond. Here’s one example: autophagy, a process in which a cell sequesters part of its contents to be self-digested and recycled, is mediated by the cannabinoid system. While this process keeps normal cells alive, allowing them to maintain a balance between the synthesis, degradation, and subsequent recycling of cellular products, it has a deadly effect on malignant tumor cells, causing them to consume themselves in a programmed cellular suicide. The death of cancer cells, of course, promotes homeostasis and survival at the level of the entire organism.

Endocannabinoids and cannabinoids are also found at the intersection of the body’s various systems, allowing communication and coordination between different cell types. At the site of an injury, for example, cannabinoids can be found decreasing the release of activators and sensitizers from the injured tissue, stabilizing the nerve cell to prevent excessive firing, and calming nearby immune cells to prevent release of pro-inflammatory substances. Three different mechanisms of action on three different cell types for a single purpose: minimize the pain and damage caused by the injury.

The endocannabinoid system, with its complex actions in our immune system, nervous system, and all of the body’s organs, is literally a bridge between body and mind. By understanding this system we begin to see a mechanism that explains how states of consciousness can promote health or disease.

In addition to regulating our internal and cellular homeostasis, cannabinoids influence a person’s relationship with the external environment. Socially, the administration of cannabinoids clearly alters human behavior, often promoting sharing, humor, and creativity. By mediating neurogenesis, neuronal plasticity, and learning, cannabinoids may directly influence a person’s open-mindedness and ability to move beyond limiting patterns of thought and behavior from past situations. Reformatting these old patterns is an essential part of health in our quickly changing environment.

What Are Cannabinoid Receptors?

Sea squirts, tiny nematodes, and all vertebrate species share the endocannabinoid system as an essential part of life and adaptation to environmental changes. By comparing the genetics of cannabinoid receptors in different species, scientists estimate that the endocannabinoid system evolved in primitive animals over 600 million years ago.

While it may seem we know a lot about cannabinoids, the estimated twenty thousand scientific articles have just begun to shed light on the subject. Large gaps likely exist in our current understanding, and the complexity of interactions between various cannabinoids, cell types, systems and individual organisms challenges scientists to think about physiology and health in new ways. The following brief overview summarizes what we do know.

Cannabinoid receptors are present throughout the body, embedded in cell membranes, and are believed to be more numerous than any other receptor system. When cannabinoid receptors are stimulated, a variety of physiologic processes ensue. Researchers have identified two cannabinoid receptors: CB1, predominantly present in the nervous system, connective tissues, gonads, glands, and organs; and CB2, predominantly found in the immune system and its associated structures. Many tissues contain both CB1 and CB2 receptors, each linked to a different action. Researchers speculate there may be a third cannabinoid receptor waiting to be discovered.

Endocannabinoids are the substances our bodies naturally make to stimulate these receptors. The two most well understood of these molecules are called anandamide and 2-arachidonolglyceraol (2-AG). They are synthesized on-demand from cell membrane arachidonic acid derivatives, have a local effect and short half-life before being degraded by the enzymes fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL).

Phytocannabinoids are plant substances that stimulate cannabinoid receptors. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the most psychoactive and certainly the most famous of these substances, but other cannabinoids such as cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) are gaining the interest of researchers due to a variety of healing properties. Most phytocannabinoids have been isolated from cannabis sativa, but other medical herbs, such as echinacea purpura, have been found to contain non-psychoactive cannabinoids as well.

Interestingly, the cannabis plant also uses THC and other cannabinoids to promote its own health and prevent disease. Cannabinoids have antioxidant properties that protect the leaves and flowering structures from ultraviolet radiation – cannabinoids neutralize the harmful free radicals generated by UV rays, protecting the cells. In humans, free radicals cause aging, cancer, and impaired healing. Antioxidants found in plants have long been promoted as natural supplements to prevent free radical harm.

Laboratories can also produce cannabinoids. Synthetic THC, marketed as dronabinol(Marinol), and nabilone (Cesamet), a THC analog, are both FDA approved drugs for the treatment of severe nausea and wasting syndrome. Some clinicians have found them helpful in the off-label treatment of chronic pain, migraine, and other serious conditions. Many other synthetic cannabinoids are used in animal research, and some have potency up to 600 times that of THC.

Cannabis, The Endocannabinoid System, And Good Health

As we continue to sort through the emerging science of cannabis and cannabinoids, one thing remains clear: a functional cannabinoid system is essential for health. From embryonic implantation on the wall of our mother’s uterus, to nursing and growth, to responding to injuries, endocannabinoids help us survive in a quickly changing and increasingly hostile environment. As I realized this, I began to wonder: can an individual enhance his/her cannabinoid system by taking supplemental cannabis? Beyond treating symptoms, beyond even curing disease, can cannabis help us prevent disease and promote health by stimulating an ancient system that is hard-wired into all of us?

I now believe the answer is yes. Research has shown that small doses of cannabinoids from cannabis can signal the body to make more endocannabinoids and build more cannabinoid receptors. This is why many first-time cannabis users don’t feel an effect, but by their second or third time using the herb they have built more cannabinoid receptors and are ready to respond. More receptors increase a person’s sensitivity to cannabinoids; smaller doses have larger effects, and the individual has an enhanced baseline of endocannabinoid activity. I believe that small, regular doses of cannabis might act as a tonic to our most central physiologic healing system.

Many physicians cringe at the thought of recommending a botanical substance, and are outright mortified by the idea of smoking a medicine. Our medical system is more comfortable with single, isolated substances that can be swallowed or injected. Unfortunately, this model significantly limits the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids.

Unlike synthetic derivatives, herbal cannabis may contain over one hundred different cannabinoids, including THC, which all work synergistically to produce better medical effects and less side effects than THC alone. While cannabis is safe and works well when smoked, many patients prefer to avoid respiratory irritation and instead use a vaporizer, cannabis tincture, or topical salve. Scientific inquiry and patient testimonials both indicate that herbal cannabis has superior medical qualities to synthetic cannabinoids.

In 1902 Thomas Edison said, “There were never so many able, active minds at work on the problems of disease as now, and all their discoveries are tending toward the simple truth that you can’t improve on nature.” Cannabinoid research has proven this statement is still valid.

So, is it possible that medical cannabis could be the most useful remedy to treat the widest variety of human diseases and conditions, a component of preventative healthcare, and an adaptive support in our increasingly toxic, carcinogenic environment? Yes. This was well known to the indigenous medical systems of ancient India, China, and Tibet, and as you will find in this report, is becoming increasingly well known by Western science. Of course, we need more human-based research studying the effectiveness of cannabis, but the evidence base is already large and growing constantly, despite the DEA’s best efforts to discourage cannabis-related research.

Does your doctor understand the benefit of medical cannabis? Can he or she advise you in the proper indications, dosage, and route of administration? Likely not. Despite the two largest U.S. physician associations (American Medical Association and American College of Physicians) calling for more research, the U.S. Congress prohibiting federal interference in states’ medical cannabis programs, a 5,000 year history of safe therapeutic use, and a huge amount of published research, most doctors know little or nothing about medical cannabis.

This is changing, in part because the public is demanding it. People want safe, natural and inexpensive treatments that stimulate our bodies’ ability to self-heal and help our population improve its quality of life. Medical cannabis is one such solution. This summary is an excellent tool for spreading the knowledge and helping to educate patients and healthcare providers on the scientific evidence behind the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids.

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.

Cannabis law is the problem, not cannabis

The UK Government continues to try to justify their stance on the possession and cultivation of cannabis in Private, for own use, claiming that it is a dangerous and harmful drug.

Harm has nothing to do with it;

We are all allowed to engage in many activities and consumer many substances that carry a risk to the individual - but what an individual does in Private Life is supposed to be protected by Human Rights laws.

The authorities have no right to step in and stop us unless there is a risk to public health or the Rights of others.

BUT it is also supposed to be the duty of government to protect people and their health

That duty does not include the Right stop one doing what one wants in one’s Private Life.

Human Rights law demands that there is a risk to public health (etc) NOT Private Health.

We are entitled to make ourselves ill by drinking too much or taking too much sugar, coffee, over-the-counter medicines, eat out houseplants (unless it's cannabis), smoke our plants s(o long a sits not cannabis,and a couple of others) ...... and the law can do nothing so long as we do not put others at risk.

It obviously has nothing to do with harm.

Leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of dealers that may sell bad quality, unknown strength, contamination, other "drugs" certainly risks harm.

The Government realised that it had a duty to protect people that want to drink alcohol by restricting sales to "adults", ensuring quality, recording strengths and giving drinkers somewhere to go to buy and consume in safety. People can also brew their own wines and beers and the authorities can do nothing about it so long as it is not sold and causes not problems outside the premises.

And even if everything the government says is true about risks of use, or that consumption would go up, or that we're all going bald, or that some people or children are better off without it, EVEN if the mental health service was flooded with cannabis patients, even if we all get ill ... even if it did lead some people to hard drugs and / or crime, split up families, ruin lives ... THAT IS NO REASON TO PUNISH EITHER THOSE THAT SUFFER OR THOSE THAT DON'T.

So what is the purpose of giving a person a criminal record because they chose to consume one plant product over another, if they are doing no harm?

It is important to realise that Human Rights law is a higher law than national laws and meant to stifle unacceptable and unjustifiably tyrannical laws.

It is important to distinguish between a person in possession or cultivation of cannabis alone or with others on private premises, and those people that supply others, with our without profits.

It is only on supply that the authorities step in to protect people. It is only those that risk harm to others that deserve punishment.

Cannabis: Survey for Case Studies

If you have had any experience with cannabis please complete this survey which may be used as part of the WTU case against the Government.

It takes just a few minutes but will help the case a great deal. Just scroll down the page at


https://www.wtuhq.org/survey-for-case-studies/

We The Undersigned Have a Human Sovereign Right to Cannabis.

Thank you for choosing to contribute your “CannaJourney” as one of several case studies used to support the WTU legal challenge against the political policies of cannabis prohibition and its inclusion in the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971 and its subsequent amendments.

WTU seeks to issue a Declaration of Incompatibility between the MoDA and the Human Rights Act, so is gathering as many case studies as possible to demonstrate the wide variety of uses and benefits cannabis provides, including nutritional, medicinal, therapeutic, social, relaxational, recreational, spiritual, creative, industrial and environmental.

There is no right answer here, just a chance for you to tell your truth about your experience with cannabis.

Gathered information will ONLY be used to SUPPORT the WTU legal case and contact details will NOT be shared.

Many thanks for your contribution in our struggle for freedom and equality for all the CannaCommunity in British law and society.
PLEASE NOTE – YOU WILL NEED TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY IN ONE SITTING – THERE IS NO SAVE FUNCTIONALITY – SO GET YOURSELF A DRINK SIT COMFORTABLY AND SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCES.
THE CLOSING DATE FOR THIS SURVEY IS 1st SEPTEMBER 2019

UK prescription cannabis farce leaves out many thousands in need

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

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

DRUGS PROHIBITION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

DRUGS PROHIBITION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Roger Warren Evans Barrister at Law Secretariat Angel Declaration February 2003
http://www.ccguide.org/lca/challengeintro.php

on the rescheduling of cannabinoids in the UK

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

The UK Government recently announced this decision.

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

Let all adults be allowed to grow cannabis for themselves, families and friends: let carers grow it for their craes; let private cannabis clubs be allowed to grow for members and allow consumption in clubs as well as in private houses. Let doctors prescribe cannabonoids and pharmaceutical products for those that need and choose them over the natural plant. Protect cannabis consumers in the same ways as the law protects those that choose to drink alcohol. Ultimately license shops with consumer protection laws applied and tax their profits.
 
Looking at that as my ideal, and I believe the ideal of many others, this rescheduling is a small step in the right direction, but the problem is that it really puts cannabis into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and profiteers and I don't think does much for the campaign for recognition and protection of our individual rights or equal justice for all.
 
My fear is that it will put back that campaign for justice: just as people say that doctors prescribe opiates but that does not mean people can make their own, people may say: "if you need medicinal cannabis, go see your doctor"; the doctor may or may not send the patient to a specialist, and they will only prescribe it for certain ailments after all other medications have failed (last resort), a very limited number of patientes, bless them, will get it ... and everyone else is in the same position as now and maybe having to disclose their private information on their state of health or illness in court in mitigation, same as now.

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


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

Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform
Researching Reform

Monday 02 Jul 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://researchingreform.net/2018/07/02/pharma-company-majority-owned-by-uk-pms-husband-announces-new-cannabis-medication-days-after-home-office-relaxes-ban/

UK Government continues to tell lies about the cannabis plant

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

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

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

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

Medicalisation of cannabis favours pharmaceutical profiteers

So in 1971 the then government banned the use of cannabis as a medicine including tincture, on the grounds that its use could lead to use of hard drugs and an ill-informed / lie in international and UK legislation that classified the plant as having no medicinal value.

Now, some 47 years later, after causing many tens of thousands of people including children to unnecessarily suffer from dreadful ailments and injuries (and basically calling those that claimed that cannabis helped were liars), our government is acknowledging that cannabis does, in fact, have medicinal properties.

So they will allow a very strict and limited prescription system for certain cannabinoids and pharmaceutical substances such as Sativex and Bedrocan (Sativex has been allowed for some time but has been hard to get and expensive) .. whilst continuing to threaten everyone that does not fall within their definitions, with prison sentences.

So far they have failed to recognise the wide range of benefits including as a preventative medicinal substance.

So whilst this small step may appear to some as a huge step, it is a very limited step that will benefit a minority rather than a majority of those in need.

In 1971 they then argued that cannabis "misuse" could be gateway to hard drug addiction, so they closed the door.

Now they want to avoid widespread medicinal availability to prevent that same door from opening.

I say, legalise now and hold the door open. It is a fact that even under prohibition, the very large majority of cannabis consumers do not later become drug "addicts" and those that have, are actually a product of prohibition and the profiteers.

Freedom of Choice: Freedom the Farm: No Victim = No Crime 

Medical cannabis to be available on prescription in UK after being approved for use by government Cannabis-based medicines get green light as UK eases rules 

Medical cannabis in UK: What does the legalisation mean and how will it help patients?  

 Patients like me manage lifelong illness with cannabis. For us, the UK is a hostile environment 

UK Gov:  Cannabis-derived medicinal products to be made available on prescription

Cannabis: use and misuse: the false distinction

Supposedly ... cannabis was included in the Misuse of Drugs Act to try to stop or decrease the "misuse" of cannabis (as with other drugs listed) - that means the use other than as a medicine, although cannabis was also scheduled as a drug with no medicinal uses: that is all use is Misuse.

Now the scheduling and laws are being changed and cannabis, CBD, THC, will once again be recognised as a drug with medical uses.

However, cannabis will remain in the Misuse of Drugs Act, will still be classified as a drug with a potential for "misuse", that is when used "recreationally" or "religiously".

People will be arrested for growing their own (unless of course, as some people want, some people will be permitted to grow their own with doctor's permission or special exemptions.

People may still be arrested for possession without prescription.

But those in medical need, with their doctor's agreement (if they can get it) will be prescribed cannabis and cannabinoids produced by pharmaceutical companies, and their pains reduced, which of course is good.

But the false distinction between users and the matter of their Rights and Freedoms, is still being ignored.

Otherwise law-abiding people that choose to produce and possess, use, share, cannabis even in the privacy of their own homes, may still be open to ATTACK by tyrants and prohibitionists that want to ignore their Rights.

That is the majority of UK cannabis consumers and those unable to get prescriptions.

The "we want medical cannabis", playing into the hands of pharmaceutical profiteers, are taking is back to that false distinction that gives the wrong impression that the law is about drugs, when in fact it is about people, and largely ignoring the issue of Human Rights laws, which are higher laws that are meant to stop tyrannical laws such as the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The law, cannabis, medicines and our Rights -get the debate on track

Almost all the debate I am seeing is about whether cannabis helps people or drives them psychotic or makes them ill, or both, which are medical issues. Little mention of my or your human rights, which I never asked for but was "given". The law is not actually about drugs or plants or medicines, it is about what some people can or cannot do with them - possession, production, supply.

If we have a right to a private life then that must include the right to grow or possess or even share with willing people, unless it threatens PUBLIC health, public order, or the rights of others.

Issues such as whether somebody else is cured of illness or has their pains or tremors eased, or suffers from psychosis or even dies of cancer, has nothing whatsoever to do with possession, production or sharing in PRIVATE. What difference it makes to driving or singing skills, is not the issue when it comes to private life.

Limits or otherwise on strength, claims that childrenmay  use cannabis or that some people later take drugs, is not the issue when it comes to Private Life.

Billy Caldwell, Alfie and other children, in fact, don't get me wrong, but their survival has nothing to do with what we do in our private lives.

I say that because the law targets our private lives; people get busted in their homes even though they pose no threat or do no harm

IT SEEMS TO ME obvious that those that get benefit from the cannabis plant or its products that are otherwise inhumanely suffering or risking life itself, should be protected by the Government, not punished by it, and should have that medication available in a pure and safe form.

But that is a health issue, Of course they have the right to live a healthy life. Yet it is a different issue, and many of the politicians are talking about allowing pharmaceutical grade cannabis or its products including oils, on prescription. Well we know how much is already being grown ready for that profitable situation to become acceptable to the public, after the years of lies, by GW Pharmaceuticals and British Sugar and who owns shared in those?

When somebody says that cannabis use heals or harms, saves lives or ruins them, leads to drug use or not, whether safer than aspirin or alcohol or sugar - I have to ask

WHO SHOULD WE ARREST?

Those that cannabis consumption helps or those that cannabis harms?

Those that later take drugs or those that do not?

Those that eat sugar or those that do not?

Those that harm others, or those that do not?

Is cannabis a drug?

IS CANNABIS A DRUG? - A DISCUSSION

WHETHER OR NOT CANNABIS IS A DRUG POSSESSION, CULTIVATION ANS SUPPLY OUGHT BE LEGALISED.
When we talk about cannabis we are not talking about what is not cannabis
Spain: 'Cannabis is not a drug': Spain's anti-drug czar:30 Sept 2013
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cannabis plant and its derivatives which contain THC are classified as a Class B Drug and prohibited. Some parts of the plant, such as seeds, roots and stalks, do not fall within the Act. On the question of leaves, forensic scientists look for the presence of THC and other active cannabinoids, and if found, the substance falls within the Act. Some argue that cannabis is a drug in any case, as it can be used as a constituent in a medicine. Others argue that parts of the cannabis plant cannot correctly, semantically be called a drug at all, especially as it is neither physically addictive nor toxic in any conceivably consumable amount. The correct meaning of the word 'drug' as applied to cannabis continues to be debated; nevertheless, in British law, cannabis is a drug. 

Safety

Cannabis has been described as one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man, and safer than most common vegetables - DEA Judge Young, 1988. Others describe cannabis as "remakably safe, but not completely harmless" - Prof. Lester Grinspoon MD1997). Some even claim that cannabis is completely harmless and beneficial to man. Yet other scientists have inferred health risks involved the smoking of cannabis, mostly based upon the results of experimentation with THC extracts and synthetic THC carried out on mice, rats and monkeys. It is generally accepted that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. The question of the risk element attached to the use of cannabis will continue to be a matter for the experts, but irrespective of the answer there exists no just reason to punish cannabis users or those who grow it. 

Campaigners, scientists and doctors cannot agree. Cannabis has been used for centuries, both medicinally and for the high, as well as for rope etc, long before the days of drugs and synthetics. Much of the discussion is based on dictionary definitions which change with time. Tell a Rastafarian that his sacrament is a drug and you will be in trouble! Look at a bale of hemp fibre, hemp seed oil soap, paper, cloth or seedcake - they are all pure cannabis - and then tell me it is a drug.

CANNABIS IS NOT A DRUG.

Drugs are associated with addiction, habit and problems. Cannabis is associated with none of these. "Cannabis is not dope, it's everything from rope to hope!"

The following article is an extract from The Report of the FCDA Europe
Although on average approximately 75 people per annum in the U.S. are revealed by post mortem (autopsy) examination to have cannabis in their system at the time of their death, their deaths were induced by causes not associated with cannabis. In all the long history of its use of which the record dates back approximately 5,000 years, cannabis has never been cause to a single fatality. Medical records and study of worldwide pertinent writings over the millennia show that at no time has any person died from the ingestion of any amount of cannabis, ever.
Cannabis is a NON-TOXIC substance. One hundred per cent of the scores of studies by American universities and research facilities show that toxicity does not exist in cannabis. (U.C.L.A, Harvard, Temple, etc.)
All the in-depth medico-scientific clinical studies conducted (for example, US-Jamaican, US-Costa Rican, LaGuardia, etc) have revealed that cannabis contains no addictive properties in any part of the plant or its smoke, so, unlike and in contrast to tobacco, alcohol, and all the legal or illegal 'recreational' substances cannabis is both non-habit-forming and non-toxic. Therefore cannabis is uniquely safe. In this Report, let it be unequivocal and clearly understood that the use of "safe" in the context of cannabis use, by definition means,: "free of danger, risk or injury".

Cannabis Is Not A Drug: Accurate Language.

From all the medico-scientific aspects, harmless cannabis is not only wrongly defined as a "drug" in any meaningful (semantic) definition of the word but also, by definition and empirical reality, wrongly proscribed as a "drug" (or other substance) under legislation regulations.
Although dictionaries vary slightly in their definitions of "drug", virtually all refer to, and rely for definition on, a drug's habit-forming, addictive properties. Webster's New World Dictionary, for example, defines "drug" as: "a narcotic, hallucinogen, especially one that is habit-forming." As is confirmed by the aforementioned medico-scientific research, cannabis contains no habit-forming properties in the plant itself or its smoke. Evident from the most fundamental and widely inferred meaning, by definition based on empirical fact, cannabis is not a drug.

The word 'drug' derives from Old Dutch meaning dried herbs, as used in food, for healing and in the dyeing of textiles. There was no connotation of addiction. (viz: the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith; Book One, Chapter One). In the twentieth Century, that meaning has been transformed by the specious pseudo-philosophy of Prohibition.

The invalidity of linking cannabis with "drugs" is further confirmed by the U.S. government's Bureau of Mortality Statistics. The table, below, demonstrates in the most obvious manner that cannabis by any meaningful definition, traditional or modern, is not a drug and cannabis cannot (correctly) be categorised or referred to as a drug.

COMPARISON OF CANNABIS TO OTHER SUBSTANCES
BY OFFICIAL MORTALITY STATISTICS
Sample year 1988. U.S. federal government Bureau of Mortality Statistics.
SUBSTANCE............................................NUMBER OF DEATHS PER ANNUM.
TOBACCO................................................................................ 340,000 to 425,000
ALCOHOL (not including 50% of all highway deaths
And 65% of all murders).......................................................150,000 +
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdoses) ................................................180 to 1,000 +
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, triggering irregular heartbeats etc) ..................1,000 to 10,000
LEGAL DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from legal, prescribed
Patent medicines and / or mixing with alcohol) ......14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from all illegal drugs).........3,8000 to 5,200
THEOPHYLLINE (Prescribed asthma drug) ..........................................................50

CANNABIS

To those people in whose (financial) interests it is to perpetuate the Prohibition of Cannabis the semantically incorrect use of the word "drug" where cannabis is concerned, is a premeditated misuse of terminology. This serves strategy advantageous to Prohibitionists, and comprises a simple but effective mechanism of disinformation, by putting the harmless herb into an unjustifiable association with addictive and harmful drugs.
The reality is clear: cannabis and those pernicious substances, the drugs, are wholly unalike. As the word "drug" is wrong and inapplicable to cannabis, it is necessary to establish a correct word, veracious vocabulary, which is fitting.

From The Report of the FCDA Because cannabis has been loosely, widely and incorrectly referred to in the past as a "drug" does not mean that this basic untruth can become acceptable. On the contrary, since the introduction of Prohibition the legal situation compels veracity and clarity more than ever, for not to articulate the truth accurately involves perjury. Yet truthful language, the truth, exposes the mendacious basis to the Crime that is this Prohibition of Cannabis

The Australian Government Report says "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and as an hallucinogen. Cannabinoids represent a UNIQUE PHARMACOLOGICAL CLASS OF COMPOUNDS"

CANNABIS IS NOT A DRUG, AND NEITHER IS IT AN INTOXICANT.

According to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary to intoxicate is to make drunk, excite, elate, beyond self-control. Unlike alcohol cannabis users do not lose self-control. Massive amounts just send them to sleep.
Intoxicants are potentially toxic, that is poisonous, with a certain overdose level often dependent on the individual. There has never been a single death directly attributed to cannabis use, in 5000 years of history, with hundreds of millions of users in the world. There is NO TOXIC AMOUNT OF CANNABIS. One theory states that an amount of 2 pounds eaten in ten minutes, an impossible feat and not certain to cause death. No animal has died of an overdose of cannabis.
Many substances which are mind-altering or mood changing are not drugs : hormones, endorphins, adrenaline.
Conscious-altering substance which we consume but which are not generally regarded as drugs include sugar, caffeine and chocolate.

CANNABIS IS NOT THC

THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol is one of many active ingredients in cannabis. It can also be produced synthetically. Organic cannabis contains over 1000 other substances; like any herb it is the holistic use of the whole herb or medicine which is vital. 30 or 40 cannabinoids have been identified. Any judgment of cannabis based on the supply of THC to patients is unfounded.
Cannabis contains THC but cannabis is not THC. It is incorrect methodologically to mix in extraneous, irrelevant THC findings, or data from isolated cannabinoids, and then make false claims relating to cannabis.
WHETHER OR NOT CANNABIS IS A DRUG IT OUGHT BE LEGALISED.

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

ASK THE CANDIDATES ABOUT CANNABIS LAW

Political parties do not necessarily insist that their candidates agree with every policy and the legal status of cannabis possession, cultivation and supply is one of those policies: hence Peter Lilley, Conservative, supports legalisation as does Paul Flynn, Labour, and others, despite the prohibition stance of their Parties. Likewise I have spoken to Lib Dems and Green Party candidates in the past who were against legalisation.

That said, many MP's and candidates will say they support "legalisation for medical use" without really explaining what they mean, being seemingly happy to see other victimless users and growers face fine, prison and criminal records.

Some, the dumbest of all, even continue to deny that cannabis itself has any medicinal value: that is how our governments have classified the plant in the Misuse of Drugs Act and theycontinue to deny medical benefits even despite Sativex THC and CBD products are now classified as having medicinal uses and all the evidence, anedotal or not, to the contrary!

THAT IS WHY it is essential for everyone to ask (write, telephone, attend Hustings, emai, whatever) for their personal view and how they would vote (Whip or not) on a bill to fully legalise cannabis possession, cultivation and supply.

OTHERWISE, personally, I could not possibly vote for any candidate either dumb enough or stubborn enough, who stands against legalisation and / or ignores the punishment of victimless consumers.

That is WHY I am ASKING YOU to ASK THE CANDIDATES.

PLEASE SHARE

https://www.facebook.com/groups/wontvoteprohibition/

CBD Cannabis Medicines and the rest of us

On the issues of that wonderful plant that is not considered to have any medicinal values by the UK Government and others, yet contains two substances now classed as medcines, THC and CBD extracts.

Of course the THC and CBD extracts will cost more than on the "street" when extracted, purified, verified pure and delivered in standardised doses, BUT, as with all licensed medications, people will know it is pure and excatly what is being said on the label, if indeed there was one.

Sure, the price may be higher but the knowledge of purity will be there.

Now that the UK Government has decided to reschedule CBD as a medicine, those that have been supplying it on line and off-line, possibly with no real indications of purity or dose, will be less happy that the producers who will satisfy the medicines criteria, probably the bigger pharmaceutical companies such as GW who presently control the supply and profits of THC through its expensive and hard-to-get Sativex.

Yet surely this is exactly what the "endourpain" campaign that has been calling for more cannabis medicine, and exactly what the government minister promised last year at the farce debate ina side-chamber in Parliament which was supposed to be about all cannabis consumers.

We'll have to wait and see, but we know that the criteria for legal supply which has to be approved by the MHRA will come alongside an increase in price (sand supposedly, safety).
I have said all along, that a campaign based upon the demand for more "cannabis medicine" will be successful and result in more pharmaceutical cannabis roducts and extracts, NOT any change in law regarding cultivation or supply of the cannais plant or even possession.

The existence of such legally prescribable or approved extracts will also counteract any mitigation in court.

The way the campaign has been going, demanding regulations and medicine rather than fundamental Rights and Freedoms, is responsible for the changes we can see happening right now - those that have been thinking only of themselves, those that have been seeking profits, will be well-pleased.

It does nothing - it may even be a step backwards - from seeing the law changed for any of us.

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.