Letter to Norman Lamb MP regarding "skunk" cannabis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lib Dems promise to control your choice of cannabis

I sent this to the Lib Dems via their web site but as yet have not received a reply, only an acknowledgent saying they are very busy:

“so your argument goes like this: skunk is made and sold by gangsters and a small number of people may have experiences bad effects on their mental health and so you want to legalise weaker strains and stop every adult getting it, even those that experience tremendous medical benefits?

“firstly, once again I am disappointed that you fail to understand and support the Human Rights to a Private Life and the freedom of choice and practice of one's own beliefs and prefer to force your own beliefs about "skunk" on everyone.

“this is just another form of prohibition.

“secondly, you seem to misunderstand that certain strains of high THC low CBN cannabis plants are grown and sold illegally simply because many people prefer them - as is evident in Dutch coffeeshops and Barcelona Cannabis Clubs where there is plenty of choice including different ratios.

“in fact, "skunk" seems to have become a word applied to cannabis plants with high THC and the original "skunk" is no longer available on the streets of the UK.

“your logic, if applied to alcohol, would suggest you may support a ban on alcoholic spirits above a certain strength because some people that drink them have problems?

“ if you "legalise" cannabis in this way you will ensure that those that want the high THC low-CBD varieties will either grow their own or buy from illegally grown crops and leave a massive opening for the "gangs" you want to avoid. After all, those people risk up to 14 years in prison under the present regime - what sort of punishment threat would you replace that with and how will it be policed?

“what a shame that after all these years the Lib Dems still miss the point - but watching how cannabis campaigners are reacting it seems that you will not be gaining so many votes.”

Lib Dems promise to legalise cannabis for everyone over 18

A regulated cannabis market for the UK

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

Cannabis and law - the Essential Issue - People

The authorities and their backers want the only available cannabis to be on prescription and through the pharmacy such as the likes of Sativex and Bedocan - same as they want to get rid of herbal and homoeopathic medicines - they want us as their slaves whilst they continue to pollute and destroy and then want us to pay through the nose one way or another for the medicines.

"They" do not want us to even choose our own seeds or foods.

Sadly, in my opinion, far too many campaigners, activists and patients are falling into the trap of trying to differentiate between users and talk about "medical cannabis" which can only mean Sativex and Bedrocan (as opposed to "non-medical" cannabis / users) whilst saying all cannabis is medicine (different to calling it medical cannabis).

I fear that their campaign, if successful, would lead to more prescriptions - increased availability of the "medicines" - and do nothing about the RIGHTS of all people to choose their own lifestyle and beliefs, and right to a private life.

Such differentiation of types of cannabis / users is not only heading in the wrong direction, bordering on accepting a level of prohibition, limiting choices but reflects a misunderstanding of the law (it is about people not substances or reasons of use - it is about what the law sees as "Misuse"), it would also be contrary to human rights to treat people differently in law because of state of health.

The media talk about "skunk" as if "Satan" - again distracting from the real legal issue - people.

EVEN IF / JUST BECAUSE Jon Snow or a relatively small minority of users may be over-sensitive or react badly to a substance is NO REASON to ban it - no reason to punish users unless they have done harm.

For me the issue of cannabis and the law always has and still is mostly about NO VICTIM NO CRIME - all else is a distraction.
about

JON SNOW

It is vital to remember that the cannabis experince depends not simply upon strength or ratio of cannabinoids, it is based upon SET (mind set, mood, memories) and SETTING (situation, company, surroundings, people).

Average person with trusted friends in a pleasant environment = good

Jon Snow, war zone memories, TV cameras, MRI scanner, doctors, having been told he's taking two huge doses of strong "skunk" = bad

Skunk and cannabis legalisation

Reefer madness has once again raised its ugly head in the UK.   Following a study on a limited number of mental health patients,it has been announced that 25% of them took strong varieties of cannabis.   That is 25% of those diagnosed with problems, itself a small percentage of people.

Of course there is no data on people with such problems that found help using cannabis and never had to go to a doctor or psychaitrist in the first place!

So the gutter press pick up on the report and in their usual way misrepresent the data to suggest that strong cannabis poses a significant risk to teh generaol population, a greater risk than would weaker strains.

They also choose to perpetuate the "skunk" myth.

I don't know anyone that smokes skunk, it's just a particular strain isn't it?

Calling all strong varieties of cannabis "skunk" is like calling all vacuum cleaners "hoovers" or calling all ball-point pens "bics" - some may know what we mean but it is the sort of inaccuracy that experts and journalists ought to avoid

If supply was legalised, people would have choice and buy the strains most suitable to them, just as those that drink have choice of flavour, alcoholic content and brands. In the last ten years or so, in the UK and elsewhere, many growers have chosen big-return and powerful crops, the likes of Cheese, that contain high levels of THC but low CBD ratio. This seems not to suit some users that enjoy and benefit from varieties with a higher CBD ratio. Most buyers then do not have a choice and may buy "bud" not even knowing what it is at all - it smells, they call it skunk. 

That is no excuse whatsoever for those conducting studies and writing reports to make the same mistake - they are supposed to know better - was it really skunk those poor people smoked? I doubt it, even if they called it skunk.

On the other Colorado shops or Californian clinics, cannabis social clubs and cannabis clubs, Dutch coffeeshops - there is choice and there seems fewer claims of incidences of psychosis associated with cannabis - if they don't like it they buy something else.

And because the whole supply chain in the UK is illegal, there is no quality control, advice on THC: CBD ratio, no tax derived from profits and no lower age restrictions.

If indeed there is such a bad influence on mental health, albeit for a tiny percentage of the population, it is indeed a reason to legalise.

"Skunk" cannabis laced with heroin - pull the other one!

Oh come off it, try pulling the other leg!

First the article says super-strength "skunk" which is actually just one particular strain of the cannabis plant grown to increase THC levels, which is what most users wanted at the time, now over a decade ago.

Then you talk about cananbis sprayed with heroin which is much more expensive than cannabis - five to ten times the price I am told.

The greedy dealers would have to buy the costly heroin to spray on the plants they grow cheaply

Surely greedy dealers whose profit is entirely enabled by crazy prohibition laws that are not only an expensive failure when it comes to decreasing risk of harm, but so often punishes the very same victimless users and growers that it should protect - would not choose heroin to pullute the weed.

Whilst it may be true that some younger and even older novice cannabis users may not know the difference between good and bad cannabis, that which is pure and well grown, and that which is sprayed it is ridiculous to say that dealers would add heroin, which is nothing like cannabis (more akin to pills or booze) to get their customers addicted to the heroin and go back to buy more cannabis - and even more ridiculous when you claim that the cannabis itself is addictive -

It suggests that you do not know the meaning of the word addiction.when a heroin user that is addicted abstains or runs out, they often suffer uncontrollable withdrawal sysmptoms.when a cannabis user runs out, they may go out looking to more, but that is more the case of missing what one enjoys.and to think all this is caused by bad law - it does not happen in Netherlands where adults can buy from "Coffeeshops" and it is not happening in Colorado or Uruguay where cannabis is legal to buy.

Neither was it observed in all those countries such as India where cannabis has been used for many hundreds of years, even as part of religions.you want to put kids off smoking cannabis - blatant lies and distortion of the truth will not work just as it has never worked in the past!you want to reduce risk of harm, actual harm and consumption by youngers - legailse the cultivation at home for own use and open cannabis retail outlets for adults

To bring in a reformed drug addict to tell us how he used drugs, became addicted, overcame the addiction and is now OK - how stupid is that?

Liverpool Echo, February 23 2014
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hooked-now-mersey-drug-dealers-6735907
Hooked: Now Mersey drug dealers are lacing skunk weed with heroin
Experts say many of youngsters 'don't know what they're smoking'

Drug dealers are hooking cannabis users to their ‘products’ by lacing them with highly addictive heroin, diazepam and methadone.

And now cannabis has overtaken alcohol as the drug that is gripping hold of teens and putting their mental health at risk, a Sunday ECHO investigation reveals.

Now the rising use of super strength cannabis, commonly known as skunk, is causing unknown damage, experts fear.

Specialist Dr Faizal Mohammed, clinical director for Mersey Care NHS Trust’s addiction service, says most young people turning to addiction services for help now come to them for cannabis problems rather than alcohol – so much so that they had to adapt what they do to help them.

And we have spoken to one recovered addict, who is still close to the drugs scene on Merseyside, who revealed how the hard drugs are sprayed onto cannabis leaves to create a ‘hit’ that users will become desperate to repeat.
He told us the kids taking the drugs ‘wouldn’t even know what they were smoking.’

Dr Mohammed told the Sunday ECHO: “We are increasingly seeing more patients report to us with cannabis. If you look at national trends, the numbers of people with crack cocaine and heroin there has been a decline, for cannabis there has been an increase.”

He said figures suggest in the 16 to 24 age group, cannabis is the most commonly used drug rather than alcohol, saying: “Those people coming to our services for treatment in that age group, 60% are coming for cannabis and related issues, 40% are coming for alcohol. Cannabis seems to be the main drug.

“About one in ten experience unpleasant effects of cannabis when using it. If someone takes a large amount of cannabis they could end up with racing heart, paranoia – where they think someone is following them, hallucinations, seeing, hearing things. I would say the increase in numbers coming to us has happened in the last two to three years.”

And he added that “skunk” – man manufactured using artificial intensive growth methods such as hydroponics – was causing the biggest worry among health professionals.

He said this breed of cannabis contains more Tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC) – the mind altering ingredient that gives cannabis its potency. But little is known of how damaging it is.

Dr Mohammed, who has been a consultant in Liverpool for five years, said: “10 years ago most of the cannabis that was used had a small amount of THC, skunk has more THC – the harmful element.

 “There is a clear association between cannabis and psychosis (abnormal condition of the mind), maybe a causal link. Whether it can cause psychosis is not entirely clear, but there is some link with depression and anxiety.

“Those who are vulnerable or have a family history of mental illness are vulnerable and that group should be careful using any amount of cannabis.”

The Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM) , which was launched on Merseyside in 2000, is also worried about the growth of skunk cannabis. They run a helpline open 5pm-midnight, seven days a week, every day of the year, where men can talk to someone on a whole range of issues from suicide, substance misuse, depression, illness, bereavement and more.

Simon Howes, Merseyside CALMzone Co-ordinator, said: " When we talk to people who use a lot of cannabis or skunk, the general themes are that it's not the quality it was, it causes more side affects and they feel it is having a negative effect either on their mood now or they have noticed it having an effect on their mental health in later life.
"Each person’s experiences can be different, but from our experience people may be experiencing increased anxiety, depression, difficulty managing anger, paranoia, panic attacks or difficulty with their short term memory. Often callers have used cannabis to try and manage their stress or cope with the difficulties they are facing in life, but it may actually end up adding to their problems and making it harder to cope."

David’s warning after 20 years of drugs hell

A victim of laced cannabis has revealed how he spend 20 years fighting a desperate drug habit.

David, who has now managed to get clean, warns that diazepam and methadone can be sprayed on to cannabis with users absolutely clueless as to what they are smoking.

The 32-year-old, who did not want to be identified, said: “These kids of the new generation are in an even worse place than we were. Now they spray it with methadone, diazepam. They put fibreglass, sand and saw dust in to weight it. The diazepam gives you a buzz but when you stop taking it, you get mad panic attacks and it’s a scary place to be.

“They’ll put heroin in it which shows how determined they are to keep people on the end of the line.

Far from being a ‘soft’ drug, David calls cannabis “psychosis in a cigarette”.

He said: “ If you had 1,000 criminals, 850 would say cannabis is where it all started, especially in this city. Cannabis is everywhere. To look at cannabis as harmless is delusional. Certain parts of this city are run by drugs. No matter where you go, you can get it. Ask kids on the corners, they’ll know where – one of them might even be selling it.”
David went from cannabis use at 13 to heroin, crack and cocaine in later years, but he counts cannabis as being the most dangerous.

 “The most violent drug is crack but the most dangerous is cannabis, because you’ve still got an alertness and as soon as you run out of it, you think in your head ‘I’ll do anything to get it’.”

David was convicted for a number of crimes all committed as a result of needing a cannabis high. One of the worst, he said, was breaking into a home shared by nurses.

Ashamed, he said: “I knew it was wrong at the time, these are people who heal the sick, but I wanted money for cannabis.”

His life was turned around by Mersey Care NHS Trust who has been helping him overcome addiction, he urges others to get help.

RE: Cannabis 'Russian roulette' warning

I find it hard to believe that you printed the nonsense spouted by Charles Walker MP (Cannabis 'Russian roulette" warning, June 13)

Mr Walker apparently told the House of Commons "young people "playing Russian roulette" with their lives through the use of skunk cannabis."  In this Mr Walker (MP for Broxbourne) reveals his ignorance in many ways.

Firstly "skunk" cannabis is just one of a huge number of varieties and it's strength, like all cannabis,  depends upon how it is grown.

Mr Walker also wrongly claims that cannabis today is the drug had changed over the last 30 years and was now was "highly toxic and highly dangerous".

The truth was revealed by Kings College, London, about a year ago, when after studying the strength of cannabis, reported that it has not changed.

As for toxicity, clearly Mr Walker does not know the meaning of the word, for the truth is that it is impossible for a human being to consume the toxic dose, which is measured in kilos.

As for playing Russian roulette, Mr Walker ought to be ashamed of himself to make such a comparison - I would happily challenge him to stand by his words, him with a gun loaded with one bullet, me with a massive bag of his so-called "skunk".

Alun Buffry
Norwich

sent in reply to
Newmarket Journal, 13 June 2011
http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/regional/cannabis_russian_roulette_warning_1_2762093
Cannabis 'Russian roulette' warning

A Hertfordshire MP has warned of a major public health risk with young people "playing Russian roulette" with their lives through the use of skunk cannabis.
Introducing the Commons adjournment debate, Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne) said the drug had changed over the last 30 years and was now was "highly toxic and highly dangerous".
He called on the Government to do more adding: "We can't talk about harm reduction - we have to talk about harm prevention.
"Up and down the country too many families are suffering the torture of watching their children squander their futures - bright children who have so much to live for ending up with so little.
"This is brought about too often by an addiction to skunk cannabis, a drug that is ruining lives."
The drug, he said, created a sense of euphoria, but had many side-effects including hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, attention impairment and emotional impairment.
He said: "Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis."
Mr Walker said one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.
He added: "Skunk cannabis is like holding a loaded revolver to your head and playing Russian roulette. You don't know if you have the gene and you don't know when the bullet will fire."
Responding to Mr Walker's concerns, Health Minister Anne Milton pledged to do all she could to protect the health of young people, and acknowledged that skunk cannabis was on average four times stronger than herbal cannabis.

David Cameron Needs to think it through on cannabis

In his interview "A World View" at 10 mins 45 seconds in, David Cameron makes some strange statements in response to questions about the "legalisation" and the "medicinal" uses of the cannabis plant.

The Prime Minister says that he is against "legalisation" because "if you look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today it is incredibly damaging, is very vey toxic and in many cases leads to huge mental health problems, but a more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and increase use levels even more than they are now and I don't think it's the right answer.  I think a combination of education and also treatment programmes for drug addicts those are the two most important points."

Yet, according to a study conducted by Kings College, London (2007) concluded "samples of cannabis seized by the police and discovered that the strength was the same as when similar checks were conducted a decade ago."

Despite that report and despite several studies conducted by the Government's own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommending that cannabis remain in class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Labour Government supported by the Conservatives upgraded cannabis to class B again in 2009 based upon this falsity.

In any case, if indeed there is a deemed to be a problem caused by the uncontrollable supply of strong strains of cannabis with no quality controls or indications of strength or purity, would it not have made more sense to create a legal distinction based upon strength?

Would it not make more sense for the Government to control supply by growing or importing "old style" cannabis - the sort Mr Cameron and so many MP's smoked in their youth - and sold it to adults through outlets similar to Dutch-style "Coffeeshops".

On the medicinal value of cannabis, Mr Cameron says that should be left to experts, yet he defies his own experts when it comes to classification and defiantly opposes the Dutch doctors that prescribe medical cannabis bud to patients including British People that go there.  

Whilst residents of EU countries such as The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, are allowed to bring their prescribed natural cannabis to the UK with them, being protected under the Schengen Agreement, the Government stubbornly threaten to arrest UK residents that do the same.  Pure hypocrisy considering that expensive "Sativex" - a cannabis extract in alcohol - produced by Pharmaceutical companies, is available to a limited number of patients legally in the UK

Mr Cameron favours better education about drugs yet seems to know so little about cannabis himself.

NO VICTIM = NO CRIME

The Legalisation of the possession, cultivation and supply of cannabis is not a question of whether cannabis use is beneficial (as claimed by hundreds of millions of users around the world) or causes harm (a claim made by a quite small percentage of users). Neither is it about the scientific evidence, nor is it about whether or not one should use cannabis.

All major scientific studies into the effects of cannabis on people have concluded that the dangers have been grossly exaggerated or concocted, and that cannabis law is at best ineffective and at worst in itself illegal, being contrary to several Articles of Human Rights

The essential questions that should be debated are:

• Does the prohibition law (the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971) harm or benefit to society and individuals?

• What justification is there in punishing a person who grows, uses or even supplies cannabis if they are not harming or threatening anybody?

Two UK Royal Commissions (The British Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, 1894 and The Wootton Report, 1969) looked at cannabis and the law and concluded that prohibition was not the means to reducing harm. Those expensive reports were but were ignored by the governments of the times.

Despite the outcry from both public and eminent bodies, successive UK governments have refused to even debate the legalisation of cannabis. Only now is the debate beginning to open up.

There have been over 1 million prosecutions in the UK for the possession of the cannabis plant over the last 30 years. Most of those people have had no victims to their cannabis "crimes" and posed no threat to society. The annual cost of this to the taxpayer has grown to billions of pounds.

Moreover, the cannabis issue is about much more than the freedom to smoke a 'joint.'

Cannabis, also known as hemp, is one of the most versatile and efficacious plants on earth. It can be used to produce literally thousands of products to replace many of the dangerous synthetics presently in use - everything from dioxin-free paper to pollution-free fuel, from safe herbal remedies to biodegradable plastics, from furniture and bricks for building to food and clothing. Cannabis could literally feed, clothe, house and ease the suffering of most of the world's population, all done on a local level without damage to the environment.

We need to recognise what our greater-grandparents all knew. In his "Complete Herbal and English Physician" of 1826, Culpeper wrote of hemp: "It is so common a plant, and so well known by almost every inhabitant of this kingdom, that a description of it would be altogether superfluous." Culpeper went on to list some of the medical uses of cannabis. Today, many millions testify to the therapeutic value of cannabis to them. Many more are denied the benefit by a law that cannot be said to work. 

The legalisation of cannabis would enable research and investment into the potential benefits of using cannabis once again.

The cost of this senseless prohibition is to society and the environment - it effects each and every one of us in a detrimental way, even though we may not be aware of it. Much of the world is polluted, starving or crime-ridden. Millions of otherwise law-abiding people in Britain live constantly in fear of threat "knock on the door" - or their door being kicked in. Sick people are denied an effective medicine. The young are alienated from authority.  UK taxpayers contribute without choice to the annual bill of trying to enforce prohibition that now runs in to over £18 billion.

The results of legalising cannabis would be far-reaching and benefit the whole of society. They include:

• Decrease in general crime rate.
• Easing of the drugs problem.
• Increase in police and court resources to fight serious crime.
• Increase in Government revenue through taxation on profits.
• Increase in public and social well being, spirit, health and happiness.
• Decrease in pollution.
• Decrease in the price of fuel, energy and power for our homes, businesses, factories etc.
• Decrease in unemployment.

Legalisation of cannabis is the only sensible solution to solve the problems associated with its illegality!