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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LINKS
END OUR PAIN CAMPAIGN

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

 

US government says cannabis kills cancer cells 

US Government’s medical marijuana patent

Marijuana cures cancer; US government has known since 1974

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

Myhat and I present a short movie for your entertainment

https://youtu.be/kv35xv-Okvw

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warmongers - #NOTINMYNAME STOP BOMBING SYRIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Response to Tom Lloyd of the National Cannabis Coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that would be a true umbrella movement.

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




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

Cannabis for medical purposes first – a winning strategy?

Posted on 19 November 2015 by tomclloyd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Peace is more than the absence of war

So who looks at any possible solutions to the eye for an eye philosophy? is there a solution? is war a natural part of the animal called (wo)man? 

 

Is the world too big to change?

 

My personal belief is that to put an end to war we need to spread peace. Not just the idea of peace but the experience, the feeling, the knowing how to get that feeling, and it would need to be a feeling available practically to every human being irrespective of health, wealth, education, religion or no religion, in all parts of the world, given freely and not through challenging indoctrination or preaching religion. It would have to be universally acceptable and beneficial, like air or water, like breath itself. But I know that in order for that to happen, there is a massive amount of concept, misunderstanding, fear and opposition to overcome.

 

The process starts with me, the process starts with you.

 

I can only tell you about my personal experiences of how and when I was shown how to find that peace within inside me in 1972: it cost me nothing but a little effort and some acceptance of a gift.

 

Once peace is found within inside oneself, it spreads, it helps overcome fear, anger, hatred, greed and it leads to contentment.

 

World peace is something else, an end to war would be a start, but even where there is no war people sometimes fail to find peace, for peace is not simply the absence of war.

I am so happy to know that in this day that experience is on offer, for free.

http://www.wopg.org/

First of its Kind Study Shows Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving

First of its Kind Study Shows Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=21223

Anna Hunt
Waking Times

Friday 30 Oct 2015


Researchers at the University of Iowa’s (UI’s) National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) published a new study that examined how inhaling cannabis affects driving. The results may help shape the rules of how law enforcement handles drivers under the influence of cannabis.

“Alcohol is the most common drug present in the system in roadside stops by police; cannabis is the next most common, and cannabis is often paired with alcohol below the legal limits.

We know alcohol is an issue, but is cannabis an issue or is cannabis an issue when paired with alcohol? We tried to find out.” ~ Tim Brown, associate research scientist at NADS and co-author of the study.

The new study, conducted by Gary Gaffney, Tim Brown and Gary Milavetz, put 18 participants through a 35 to 45 minute simulated driving test, with one group having consumed alcohol, another having vaporized cannabis, and a third group under the influence of both alcohol and cannabis. The effort was sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Four important findings were reported:

Drivers under the influence of only cannabis showed little driving impairment when compared to drivers under the influence of alcohol or both substances.

Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active ingredient in cannabis) showed similar impairment to drivers with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The current legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L.

Drivers who use alcohol and cannabis together weave more on a virtual roadway than ones that used either substance independently, although consuming both does not double the impairment.

Analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of cannabis although it should not be considered a reliable measure of impairment.

For the study, researchers selected 13 men and five women between the ages of 21 and 37 who reported drinking alcohol and using marijuana no more than three times a week. After spending the night at the UI’s facilities to ensure sobriety, participants were taken to NADS for “dosing” followed by a simulated drive in a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome.

Before the simulation test, each participant had 10 minutes to drink an alcoholic beverage, or a juice with flavoring that mimicked alcohol, and then another 10 minutes to inhale a placebo or vaporized cannabis. The goal was to have some participants’ blood alcohol level at about 0.065 percent, and some participants’ blood concentrations at about 13.1 ug/L THC, and some under the influence of both.

Once in the simulator, drivers were assessed on: weaving within the lane; how often the car left the lane; and the speed of weaving. The researchers reported that drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas. They reported that participants only under the influence of cannabis showed impairment only with weaving within the lane.

Andrew Spurgin, a postdoctoral research fellow with the UI College of Pharmacy, shared another important fact as part of the study:

“Everyone wants a Breathalyzer which works for alcohol because alcohol is metabolized in the lungs. But for cannabis this isn’t as simple due to THC’s metabolic and chemical properties.”

The study’s finding are not likely to have any immediate effect on the current legal limits for THC, but hopefully it will slow the attempts to deploy devices for instant roadside THC testing before further research can be conducted.

About the Author

Anna Hunt is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an entrepreneur with over a decade of experience in research and editorial writing. She and her husband run a preparedness e-store outlet at www.offgridoutpost.com, offering GMO-free storable food and emergency kits. Anna is also a certified Hatha yoga instructor. She enjoys raising her children and being a voice for optimal human health and wellness. Read more of her excellent articles here. Visit her essential oils store here.

Source:
http://now.uiowa.edu/2015/06/ui-studies-impact-marijuana-driving

This article (First of its Kind Study Shows that Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/10/30/first-of-its-kind-study-shows-cannabis-has-little-to-no-significant-effect-on-driving/

HMP Blantyre House (Taken From Time For Cannabis: The Prison Years 1991 to 1995 by Alun Buffry)

BLANTYRE HOUSE

From Time For Cannabis: The Prison Years 1991 to 1995

Available on Amazon as paperback and Kindle

After writing the previous chapters, I had wanted to write about Blantyre House, a totally different and altogether more positive experience with a fresh start, rid of the influence of the Whitemoor memories, so I had decided to take a break.

Unintentionally, that break lasted 17 years!

Now I feel I can comfortably write this chapter, not that the long gap in time was due entirely to the Whitemoor experience, after all, I left that place a couple of years before starting this book. But there have been other things on my mind, which included co-founding and running a small political party based on the single issue of cannabis, travelling as I could afford and a lot of other writing

So, having been approved for HMP Blantyre House, Gary (the inmate travelling with me) and myself were all packed up and ready to leave Whitemoor as soon as we could.

We had heard favourable reports of the relaxed regime there and were looking forward to seeing our bridge-playing, ecstasy-smuggler friends Will and Tom along with a few others from Whitemoor.

This is what the Department of Justice says about Blantyre House in 2015:

"Blantyre House is an adult male category 'C/D' resettlement prison. The buildings themselves are located in a country house which was taken over by the Prison Commission in 1954, having previously operated as a Fegan Home. It was a Detention Centre for young offenders before converting to a resettlement prison for long term prisoners.

"Regime: The regime at Blantyre is designed to prepare men for their eventual release. Within the first six months it is compulsory for the men to continue to build upon their education, which will include obtaining Basic Skills qualifications and taking part in courses such as healthy lifestyles, social and life skills, independent living and preparation for work. There are also a number of vocational courses on offer including IT, Dry-lining and Plastering. Once risk-assessed prisoners are allowed the opportunity to develop their education by attending external colleges to obtain further employment skills. As well as education, prisoners are able to work as cleaners, kitchen workers, orderlies etc."

http://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/blantyre-house

At Whitemoor on the day of our transfer, after the traditional slops for breakfast, we were escorted through numerous gates along with our possessions. We were taken to a holding cell to await the arrival of the screws and the transportation.

We were told to change into our own clothing by the screw from Blantyre House, which we gladly did. I felt like tearing up the prison clothing. But within minutes he came back and told us we would have to change again because the Whitemoor administration would not allow us in our own clothing whilst still inside the prison. So we changed, again. We did not want to get into trouble before we even left and anyway we were used to petty rules being thrown at us seemingly willy-nilly.

Once we were inside the prison van and outside the prison grounds, we were told we could change back into our own clothing again. The screw actually apologised. He said that at Blantyre House everyone knew the rules and he repeated them.

No alcohol or drugs, no violence or verbal abuse, obey the laws of the land and commit to a minimum of half a day at education every week.

They also told us to be careful with the food, especially the chips, as it was served hot and may be the first hot food we had eaten in prison. That was wrong of course but they did not know that I had been cooking much of my own food along with Ken and others, in the small kitchen on the wing, but they were correct about the Blantyre food as I was to find out.

The journey from Peterborough to Kent took a few hours and we were given sandwiches. The time went quick even though we could not see the scenery.

HMP Blantyre House was in Kent near the village of Goudhurst, close to Cranbrook, beautiful countryside famous for growing hops used to manufacture the drug alcohol.

As we arrived at Blantyre House, pulled in through the gates; we climbed out of the van and there stood my friend Will.

Will took us to our "rooms" inside the large wooden building. He said we would be sharing for a while but later would move to other rooms; this was the reception cell.

The cell contained two bunk beds but Gary and I were the only two that would be using them that night. Apparently we would be here a few days and then moved to another "room". We had our own keys. The room was next to the Principal Officer's (The PO) office; I assumed it was so they could better keep an eye on us.

Will also told us that he would take us to the dining hall as dinner was about to be served, then after that we would go to see the PO's office to "check in".

Afterwards, Will said, he would show us the prison grounds where we were free to wander at almost any time between 8 am and 8 pm. After 8 pm we had to be inside the main building and the outside doors would be locked, but we could associate in rooms until 10 pm.

I do not remember what I had for dinner except that it was vegetarian and hot and quite tasty. Will had arranged for us to share a table with himself and Tom from Whitemoor and a few others; one was Terry P. who was doing time for his part is an horrific robbery.

There were about 100 inmates at Blantyre and the dining room was crowded. Will told us that we would probably be put on washing up duty the next day, and do that, as was traditional for new arrivals, until more new inmates arrived. Then, he said, we would probably be put on cleaning and after that we would either do outside work or college, or do full time education. Being on my Open University course in computing and busy building my database on Ancient Egypt, education would suit me.

After dinner, as promised, Will took us to the Principle Officer's office. Gary Catton, the screw that had interviewed me in Whitemoor, was the PO on duty. Officers, though, weren't called "screws" or even "kangas" here. It took just a few minutes of confirming our names and numbers and being told that after breakfast the next day we had to report to the kitchen and do washing up duty.

After that, Will took Gary and I for a walk-about; he showed us the education block, canteen, church building and gym. There was quite a large green area where rugby and other sport was played.

On the Saturday, just two days after arriving, we joined about twenty others along with several officers, for a five mile country ramble. It was amazing, instead of being forced to march together as I had anticipated, we were all allowed to walk at our own paces. I found myself walking down a beautiful and quiet grove where the trees were brown and freshly fallen leaves were scattered about, passing large gates to houses and small cottages. I felt there may have been a babbling brook somewhere beyond but out of our sight.

After where I had been the last few years and even my home life before that, this was a new world. I felt free and trusted.

Beyond that area there was a fence with an open gate and the other side of that we saw several inmates' allotments, a chicken run, and a large field part of which inmates had worked on for use as a small golf course.

We walked right around the inside of the fence. We walked to places where we could not be seen from the main buildings. There was no razor wire and no visible cameras. It was hard to believe that we were not being watched. A result of Whitemoor paranoia?

I looked up at the trees but still saw no cameras. The only razor wire, Will said, was near the canteen, to stop local kids from climbing over and stealing stuff!

What an incredible change from Whitemoor. Here they talked about the "ethos" and the Governor, Jim Semple said that he did not like to be called "Sir". It was difficult at first to know who was a screw and who was a con.

I slept well that night, although Gary complained that I had snored loudly.

Suck it and see: LSD in Kabul

Taken from All About My Hat - The Hippy Trail 1972
http://www.buffry.org.uk/allaboutmyhat.html
https://www.facebook.com/allaboutmyhat
available on Amazon

Suddenly Diane said “Hey, you want some of these?”
She held out her hand and in her palm were four or so small squares of blank paper.
“What's that?” asked Al “looks like paper!” he laughed.
“It's acid,” she said, “LSD, you know, Lucy in the Sky. I got some from a French guy. He reckoned they're really good! Want to try?”
Al found her manner too seductive to resist.
“How many do we take? How strong are they? How long do they last? I've never done it.”
"I don't know,” she said “I've got four. You take two and I'll take two.”
“I think I'll just take one first time,” he said.
With that Diane popped one small square of paper into Al's mouth. “Suck it and see,” she laughed.
Al laughed and then frowned as he watched Diane put the other three squares into her own mouth.
She washed it down with a fizzy drink.
“So this is going to be a trip”, thought Al.
He thought about the books he had read – “Aldoux Huxley and Timothy Leary, about LSD and other psychedelic drugs: there was that book by the guy that gave acid to dolphins and then took it himself and put himself into an “isolation tank” and had met beings made out of light. What was his name? Oh yeah, John Lily's Eye of the Cyclone. Oh and the Carlos Castaneda's tales about a Shaman that took psychedelic plants to make contact with beings on other levels.
“The Beatles of course – was that before or after they had gone to Rishikesh with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
“The whole hippy thing was a lot to do with LSD and love and peace and flowers, so that is obviously what it's about – a good time, a spiritual time – just probably stronger than hash.”
He looked up from his thoughts and started to look around the courtyard.
It looked different!
Al thought that he hadn't noticed the bells hanging from the edge of the roof, or the bright red flowerpots that held the small trees. And there seemed to be more flowers than before. Yet he'd been there several times before.
Some of the people there, the Westerners, started to look quite funny the way they were dressed. Bandanna’s! He hadn't noticed them – in Kabul – they looked really out of place!
Funny how so many were wearing blue jeans, including the two guys serving – and they had short hair, the customers all had long hair.
Weird that people came here to Sigis to eat food they could get back home.
Some of the people looked like people Al had known, or like mixtures of two of them. Several times he felt like shouting out to them, but then they moved and turned into themselves again. How strange, how funny.
He started to laugh and turned to Diane to tell her his thoughts – she was looking at a colourful bird, some sort of canary, that was standing on on top of a small green shrub, almost motionless, as she was. She looked mesmerised, so Al kept quiet, laughing again in his head.
Al turned back to look at the people again.
That guy looked familiar.
As he looked at the guy, the guy stood up and walked over.
“Hi!”, he said. “Are you Al?”
Al felt a little uneasy at that – how did the guy know his name?
“You from Norwich? I'm Pete – remember me – Pete Roscoe?”
“Wow,” said Al, “You are Pete Roscoe, yeah, I remember you of course, I thought you were somebody that looked like him, I mean you!”, he laughed.
Al had known Pete Roscoe back in Norwich but had had no idea that he too, would be heading for India. Pete had also known John and Keith.
“How you doing man?” said Pete, “How long you been here, where you going? ”
Al answered: “I went to India with Keith and then I got sick – Infectious Hepatitis and dysentery, nearly died, had no money, on my own, in Haridwar in the Northern Foothills. But I got to hospital in Delhi – I've been in hospital here too. Just waiting to get some money to get home. I'm with Diane. I want to get her home too."
He turned to introduce Pete to Diane. She was staring into a glass of fizzy drink and quietly giggling.
“Hi Pete!”
Al knew that Pete had known John and maybe Mike, so he asked: “Have you heard anything about John and Mike? Keith and I left them with the van in Antalya in Turkey and caught a boat to Iskenderun – we hitched from there across Syria to Baghdad. I haven't heard from them – we were supposed to meet them back in Istanbul but decided to carry on to India. Are they back in England yet?”
“God what a drag about John - you don't know what happened, do you?”, asked Pete.
“No,” said Al.
“Wow man, I hate to tell you this,” said Pete, “John was killed in a crash the night you left them in Turkey. Mike had broken his legs and some ribs and was in hospital there for several weeks. I heard they crashed into a parked truck on a bend at night – John was driving – he swerved out and probably saved Mike's life but was killed himself. Everyone was real sick about it, man.”
It may have been because Al was still in some doubt that this was actually Pete Roscoe – maybe that cushioned the blow for him – he was tripping on acid and just been told his best friend John had died hours after he had last seen him.
So Pete and Al chatted a while longer, Pete was on his way to India. Al gave him some advice about being really careful about what he ate and drank, to keep hydrated, and not to drink the Ganges.
Then it was time that Pete said he would have to go as he had people to meet. They agreed to meet in the same place at lunch time the next day.
Al ordered another two teas with milk. It tasted weird. Different. He didn't drink his.
Then he felt it time to go and explore the streets.
“Come on Diane, let's go for a walkabout. I want some of those spicy potatoes and corn on the cob I've seen..”
So they went outside to see the street.
“Where are we?” asked Diane.
“Sigis, Chicken Street!” said Al.
“Or is it? Hang on, it's not Chicken Street, we must have come out of a different door!,” exclaimed Al - “Wait a minute, there's that Kabul restaurant place – it is Chicken Street – wow, it looks different, I never noticed all those ribbons and flags – hey be careful where you walk, there's holes all over the place – hey look at that donkey, it's only got three legs!”
“Hey this is great, let's go look at Flower Street!”
“Okay,” said Diane. She wasn't saying much but she had a big grin. She took hold of Al's arm.
“Don't let me fall down a hole, it's really tricky up here with the wind.” she said.
Al couldn't feel any wind and we were not high up at all, from the road – well I guess if we're 6000 feet above sea level we must be “up here”.
“Six thousand feet and climbing!” he said for no real reason.
So they strolled down Chicken Street towards Flower Street, looking in the shop windows and at stalls that Al thought he had never seen before. Everything except the road itself was much more colourful and shiny than he remembered, except the road had many massive piles of dung on it. As he looked, he saw a donkey adding more to it!
All the local merchants seemed to be nodding and smiling at them today! Al thought they all looked like – well they were on something - they were tripping too! Well, thought Al, I guess you've got to be on something to live here – it's like magic.
They reached the end of Chicken Street where it joined Flower Street.
It looked really busy with people that obviously weren't tripping.. It didn't look magic at all. Dark and damp with too many hidden spots, thought Al. Despite the flowers it was not inviting. Noisy too. Chicken Street had seemed very quiet – probably all the shoppers were down here.
“Let's go back – or down by the river, we could see the Mosque,” he said.
“Yeah let's go that way, to the Mosque,” laughed Diana. “It doesn't matter where we land, we'll be OK.”
It seemed like hours before they reached the Mosque and Al had to sit down.
He sat on a low wall outside a building where he could see the Mosque and got lost in thoughts about the good and bad of religions and how the bad side made it hard to believe, yet so many had fallen for religions, as if it was some sort of spell to control people. Al did not want to be a part of religion – he wanted to be apart from them all. “If there's a God,” he thought, “it's not in religion.”
He heard Diane shouting “Get off, go away. Help!”
He turned to see Diane standing on the wall and below her were three dogs. They were jumping up at her in a friendly way, thought Al.
“It's OK, they're just trying to be friendly, just get down and pet them!”
“No they're trying to bite me, they won't leave me alone. They might have rabies!”
“But they're only little,” said Al.
“No they're not, they're massive. They're not dogs – they're wolves. Help! Please!” She was really freaked.
Al just shooed the dogs away. They went off down the street, stopped and looked back. Al shouted “Go!” Off they went, hunting for food probably.
He helped Diane climb down. She hugged him.
“Well obviously, cos she took three, she's right out of it”, thought Al.
He grabbed her by the arm and they went back to Sigis where they could relax in a good friendly atmosphere and listen to some good rock music.
“Kabul streets at night”, he said, “Not good on acid!”
That was a good decision. Diane calmed down and they both enjoyed the rest of the trip, going back to the Peace Hotel with a nice piece of hash to smoke, until they dozed off as dawn was breaking and the Mullahs were calling the so-called faithful to prayer, from their minaret towers.