"There are few substances which are surrounded by more controversy, and which have at the same time such important and potentially far-reaching public health implications", the late Professor Henry wrote.[1]
The ACMD, the body tasked to adjudicate the evidence on cannabis, never shared this view and as a result fell foul of the debate. It has taken the sacking of Professor Nutt, the brouhaha and the publicity surrounding it, to pull attention back to the science on cannabis effects; science that he and the ACMD were so slow to assess, so little interested in and so quick to dismiss.
Last week the BBC's The Report programme asked the question of why on earth the ACMD recommended cannabis' downgrading in the first place. Labour MP Gwyn Prosser explained. For those arguing in favour, in the pro-liberalism political climate of David Blunket's accession to the Home Office, "it was all but a done deal, they were pushing at an open door ...." The ACMD was party to that process.
Its first cannabis report (the only one that the ACMD Chair 'had pleasure in enclosing' to the Home Secretary), which recommended reclassification to C, was just 22 pages long.[2] As a review of the classification of cannabis preparations, 'in light of the current scientific evidence', it was nominal and cursory. It drew not at all on the "large scientific literature on the effects of cannabis on human health and human society" available at the time. Its recommendation was based on drugs use prevalence statistics, speculations about and reports on decriminalisation regimes. Of the 24 references listed, only 4 referred to the scientific literature on effects. Yet when Mary Brett, a biologist and former grammar school head of health education, surveyed it for herself, she found no less than 44 pre 2002 scientific publications on the negative impact of cannabis; evidence of psychosis in cannabis users dating back to 1972. [3] The review skated over the evidence and paid lip service to cannabis harms alone.[4]
Professor Robin Murray's new research on the causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia was published eight months afterwards. In 2005 Charles Clarke not unreasonably requested the ACMD to examine all the evidence relating to mental health; he directed them to the changed content of cannabis; forensic lab data was already showing that consumption had shifted from imported resin to home grown herb with a much higher THC content and a dangerously altered THC/CBD ratio - 'skunk' which had become a rite of passage for ever younger teenagers.
The ACMD were quick to express their misgivings. Politicians were 'pandering to the media' said Lord Adebowale, a non-scientist ACMD member. He was not convinced there was fresh evidence.[5] Sir Michael Rawlins (then Chairman) also seemed to have closed his mind.[6] At a conference in the April of that year he confirmed he would not be 'confused' by the new data. True to his word only 5 pages of the 36 page response dealt with the massive output on the effects of cannabis on mental health, described as a 'biologically fraught hypothesis'.[7] Cannabis could lead to short lived panic attacks and worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia, it conceded. It could ameliorate them too. It was not a necessary, nor a sufficient, cause for the development of schizophrenia. The evidence for consumption of more potent cannabis was lacking. That was the medicine doled out to the Home Secretary. He took it.
So when Jacqui Smith asked them to look at the evidence again the ACMD were visibly affronted. Sir Michael Rawlins made his discontent public, the 10 minutes slot for cannabis on the agenda collapsed to two. He devoted them to grumbling - saying that he wished they had not been asked.[8] One (non scientific) Council member said afterwards he had no intention of ploughing through the evidence again.
In the meantime the ACMD's deputy chair had already queered the pitch for a dispassionate review. In full media glare Professor David Nutt had published an article in the Lancet in which he set out to demonstrate, through delphically derived but incomplete polling, a new classification of harms in which alcohol and tobacco emerged more harmful than cannabis and ecstasy.[9] His intention was clear - to invalidate the distinction between licit and illicit substances.
What he ignored (or perhaps pandered to) was the fact that while the excess mortality and healthcare costs associated with the use of tobacco and alcohol are well known, those for cannabis remain largely unknown. He took the lack of comparable definitive evidence on cannabis concerning the population as a lack of evidence of its harm for either individuals or society.
At 56 pages long, the ACMD's final report referred to more scientific papers than before. [10] But if a precautionary principle was applied it was to the data itself, not to its implications or to their classification recommendation. So cautious were they that they completely ignored the key published British longitudinal data on cannabis use and schizophrenia. They relied instead on a GP data base survey they decided to commission from one of their own members
The analysis they so bizarrely 'ostracized' was of a South East London longitudinal cohort covering the period between 1966 and 99 which uniquely allowed for the examination of trends in cannabis use prior to first presentation with schizophrenia. [11] It demonstrated a continuous and statistically significant rise in the incidence of schizophrenia between 1965 and 1997, one which had doubled over the last 3 decades, with the greatest increase in people under 35. It suggested that up to 20% of schizophrenia cases could be cannabis attributable.
The ACMD's decision to rely exclusively on a survey of its own commissioning which did not specifically look at cannabis use was curious. Presented by one of its own members, Professor Ilana Crome, as unpublished evidence, she reported the annual incidence of diagnosed schizophrenia and psychoses had fallen between 1996 and 2005.[12] Professor Murray dismissed this as invalid: "I have known about this study since its inception and advised the authors that they were unlikely to be able to come up with meaningful results. Firstly, a major problem concerns the diagnoses. In my experience GP diagnoses of psychiatric disorders are not very accurate. Secondly, we do not know how many cases of psychosis are dealt with exclusively by psychiatrists and GPs don't know."
His contention is that there is no significant or well done study that has not shown early onset of cannabis use to be associated with psychosis. Since 2002 he points to no less than eight cohort studies all of which show the risk of psychosis to be higher in those that smoke cannabis - a risk that increases by 6 to 7 times for heavy smokers, risks that for adolescents are disturbingly high and that show early users run into greatest problems. Starting by 15 the risk is 4 times higher than starting at 18 - a data trend which suggests the risk multiplies for each year younger.
Yet the ACMD remained adamant that these studies did not meet their bar of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and that more research was required. Others scientists begged to differ saying the persistent association was robust to methodological challenges.
Whether recently published findings which confirm that THC induces a transient, acute psychotic reaction in psychiatrically well individuals would have persuaded them, is anyone's guess.[13] Meanwhile the 'Cannabis Dependency Units' as psychiatrists describe their first contact schizophrenia wards, continue to take their toll. And while Holland finds its three dedicated residential rehabs for their severest adolescent (13 - 20) cannabis dependents to be insufficient and is building more, to create 600 places, we, in the UK, have none. We leave our stoned and de-motivated youngsters on the streets. For that we can thank the ACMD's lassitude.
[1] Professor John Henry Foreword to CANNABIS A General Survey of its Harmful Effects
Submission to The Social Justice Policy Group Mary Brett BSc (Hons)
[2] The Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 2002
[3] Cannabis: A general view of its harmful effects. www.cannabisskunksupport.com
[4] Professor Nutt, had been a member of Ruth Runciman's Police Foundation Committee which, in 2000, had already recommended the downgrading of cannabis, ecstasy and LSD. Giving evidence to a House Of Commons Select Committee he said it posed only a slight danger to health and he would be happy to see it down classified
[5] Guardian April 4th 04
[6] "Most of Professor Robin Murray's research was known to the advisory council at the time that it was producing its cannabis report" he said.. Times 23 Jan 04. Remarkable since the ACMD's report was released in March 2002 and Murrrays first research on this topic was not published until eight months later, in the BMJ of November 23rd, 2002.
[7] Further Consideration of the Classification of Cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
[8] ACMD first public meeting 29th November 2007
[9] Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse, The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9566, Pages 1047-1053 D. Nutt, L. King, W. Saulsbury, C. Blakemore
[10] 'Cannabis Classification and Public Health, ACMD, Home Office, 2008',
[11] Psychological Medicine 36: 1441-1446 by Boydell J, van Os J, Caspi A, Kennedy N, Giouroukou E, Fearon P, Farrell M, Murray RM, 2006
[12] Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005 - Frisher, M. / Crome, I. / Martino, O. / Croft, P. , Schizophrenia Research, 113 (2), p.123-128, Sep 2009
[13] Psychological Medicine (2009), 39:1607-1616 Cambridge University Press
Comments
Mr
Kathy
I read this and there are still members of the Flat Earth Society around. The real question is how attitudes can be changed. People are reluctant to admit mistakes and hide behind statistics which we all know can be made to prove anything. How do you convince Flat Earth Society members that the World is round? Where do we go from here? We know of the serious dangers of cannabis but there are some very entrenched minds here. I think it is the association cannabis has with liberalism. So dangerous. I have a friend of mine whose son was a cannabis user and he tried all the arguments possible to tell me it was harmless. He is seriously brain damaged now. I was told years ago when in rehab (and I am talking about 15 years ago) that it had been proven that cannabis can cause irreversible brain damage. Why don`t people want to listen? Of course one could logically argue that we know that tobacco and alcohol can cause irreversible damage to the body and yet both are legal substances from which all governments make fortunes. Whilst I am strongly opposed to cannabis use I find it difficult to put the case well when people bring up tobacco and alcohol. These substances just damage other parts of the body rather than the brain. They cost the NHS fortunes but all that is done is a regular tax increase which only encourages smuggling and pathetic advertising bans.
What is your solution to the problem? How successful has been your lobbying of, hopefully, our new potential government?
Ian Stungo
Not this nonsense again.
Anyone who was living in Holland 22 years ago will be able to confirm that Skunk is not a new, dangerous drug. Just fresh weed - that is all.
Murray's entire theory is based on an untruth - and although you may mislead the ignorant in this desperate attempt to discredit the ACMD, nobody of intelligence will swallow this nonsense.
Yes, you're a moron.
Um. Look at the rates of cannabis use among various countries/groups... and see if the rates of schizophrenia go up and down in line with cannabis use in various countries/groups.
Hey, wait, it doesn't! Which means... ta da! Cannabis has nothing to do with schizophrenia!
So... do you work for the alcohol companies, or what?
Oh, what a shocker.
My comment was held for approval. Please approve the previous one, and this one, so you can prove you're not working for the beer/alcohol companies. We all know their monopoly on legal drugs is strong.
Not at all surprised actually!
Yet again Kathy quotes Mary Brett as if she were some kind of expert, indeed even linking to Brett's "Cannabis and skunk support" website as if it were a factual document.
Demonstrating a correlation between things doesn't prove a causal link Kathy. Psychosis may well have doubled in Robin Murray's area of South London as cannabis use has increased, but at least have the honestly to accept that many other changes have happened there at the same time. There has been an increase in many risk factors for psychosis such as family break-up, urban living pressures and the use of other drugs to name just three.
There is no doubt cannabis does impact people with mental illness of course and it's true that mentally ill people do seem to use a lot of it. Indeed, people with mental health problems often use drugs heavily including alcohol and tobacco. I would argue that makes these people a vulnerable minority deserving of special protection.
Widespread heavy use of any drug (legal or otherwise) is something to be concerned about and all drug use by youngsters is especially so, but trying to address that through the anarchy of prohibition is beyond illogical.
Kathy is arguing for a system that prevents any control of the supply side for cannabis including regulation of strength and THC/CBD content. She is arguing against any regulation of age limits for sales and for a regime that treats those most at risk as criminals.
The prof Nutt affair has opened the debate again, and that's a good thing. Kathy's blog shows, I think, that the drug warriors are rattled.
If cannabis is a dangerous drug it should be a controlled drug subjected to proper, effective, regulation and the only way to do that is through legalisation.
Mr
I suggest you look at some of the reviews of 'The Report'
More Propoganda
I notice you did not even mention The Keele Study.
Let me spell it out for you
The rates of psychosis and schizophrenia have remained constant as cannabis consumption has increased and decreased.
In other words.
You are a prejudiced prohibitionist apologist liar.
Fortunately people are now well informed about your tabloid lies.
I hope you sleep well as people die and suffer in pain.
When they could be made comfortable by growing and ingestion a plant.
Your lies only serve to protect the alcohol and tobacco companies who kill hundreds of thousands a year.
Alcohol DOES cause psychosis by the way, there are NO doubts in that.
Cannabis has never killed anyone due to toxicity.
In fact its impossible to overdose.
So next time you spew this nonsense.
Make sure you know why you are doing it.
Your ruse of "protecting people" has been shown to be a fabrication and lie.
Kathy - There is a large body of research, and range of views on the extent cannabis risks/harms, as tends to be the way with research and analysis in the drugs field (and indeed all science). None of that research will claim cannabis is risk free - it isn't, nor is any drug. Nor have the ACMD ever claimed this, nor does a class C classification (associated with a 2 year prison sentence) imply this. The classification system (for all its manifest failings - which I have explored here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/DAATOct2007.pdf) is nominally about ranking relative harms - based on a review of the available evidence (The Nutt lancet paper outlines the Committee's way of doing this - if you have a better suggestion please publish it for the scientific community to consider).
Throughout this piece you do the opposite: you cherry pick and misrepresent the scientific evidence (as well as the storytelling) to fit you predetermined political/moral narrative. This the very essence of bad science. Having a certain view on these issues and discussing them is fine, but given your selective reporting - claiming the mantle of scientific authority in its support, and harshly condemning that of others that differ from yours, is wildly inappropriate.
I don't have the time or energy to plough through all the
misrepresentations in this piece but a couple of things should be flagged
you describe the 2001 review as 'nominal and cursory'.
and that
'It drew not at all on the "large scientific literature on the effects of cannabis on human health and human society" available at the time. Its recommendation was based on drugs use prevalence statistics, speculations about and reports on decriminalisation regimes'
Infact; the report makes specific reference to the fact that it is:
'based on a detailed scrutiny of the relevant scientific literature including four reviews commissioned by the Department of Health in 1998 as well as an update commissioned by the Home Office and completed in November 2001'
These are extensive and detailed literature reviews, all in the public domain (although presumably unread by you or Mary), the first three commissioned at the request of the ACMD, the latter commissioned by the Home Office in conjunction with the ACMD and having David Nutt, who sat on the ACMD, as one of its authors.
Also referenced is another cannabis harm review docuement produced by the UN's World Health Organisation, that notes in its abstract that:
'there have been many requests for an updated WHO report on the health consequences of cannabis use. In response to these requests, WHO convened a group of scientific experts on cannabis in Geneva in November 1993. The present report is the end-product of a review and update process which started at that meeting. This report provides a review and summary of current knowledge about cannabis use and health effects'
In this context I find your description of the 2001 report a ridiculous misrepresentation, and the comment that 'Of the 24 references listed, only 4 referred to the scientific literature on effects' a particularly laughable attempt to undermine it.
I don't want to wade into the schizophrenia/psychosis material except to highlight again, that there is range of analysis on this question that you have not fairly represented, instead highlighting the research that fits with your world view. Neither has the ACMD denied these risks - only representing the body of evidence by stating that the risks appear to be statistically small, the various research findings ambiguous and conclusions weak.
Again I think it is worth highlighting that in your many critiques of the ACMD you never mention the occasions on which their harm evaluations have led to drugs being moved up the classification scale (eg methamphetamine in 2007), nor the occassions on which various previously legal or quasi/legal drugs have been brought within the act at there recommendation (e.g. Ketamine, GBH, BZP etc). This presumably does not fit with your narrative of the ACMD being part of some 'pro-liberalism' process - rather than a committee doing their job making recommendations on the basis of assessing evidence.
Nor have you ever provided any evidence to suggest changes in classification has any effect on levels of use (although there is ample evidence to the contrary), or that a hierachy of punitive sanctions more generally is an effective way of reducing drug use or drug harms.
You like to attack the ACMD for its lack of evidence - well where's yours?
Since you never respond to comments on your blogs I wont expect any now.
CEO Addiction Recovery Training Services
SCIENCE WAS NEVER THE ACMD'S STRENGTH.
The question is not"Why was David Nutt sacked?", but rather "Why was he ever appointed?" and, if so, "Why as a professed "scientist" did he not refuse to work within the unscientifically narrow restrictions of his Council's remit?".
As a psycho-pharmacologist whose work includes the prescribing of pharma-ceutical drugs and the counselling of addicts, it is obvious that Nutt would not want to see pharmaceitical drugs "officially" classified, because a majority would be Class "A", and their numerous addictive and damaging side effects would become public knowledge.
ACMD independence always suffered from having a membership mainly comprised of psychiatrists and pharmacologists whose main experience of addiction is the long term "management" (with their drugs and counselling) of those using illegal substances - psych-pharm's basic philosophy resting on the profitable promotion of the false idea that substance addiction is incureable.
What is now needed is an influx of new members whose training and experience lies in successfully recovering individuals from ALL types of addiction - including addictive psychiatric prescription drugs, whose usage in the society is nearly as widespread as alcohol, and definitely exceeds the illicits.
All forms of addictive substances are used inter-dependently by addicts, so we not only have pateients involuntarily addicted to prescription drugs, but we also have the pharmaceuticals traded at "street level" alongside the illicits and cut-price smuggled or stolen alcohol.
If we are ever to contain or reduce the "drugs problem", then the first step is to limit the influence on government policy of vested interests in the alcohol and pharmaceutical product sectors - and this includes the official banning and / or ignoring of the huge nationwide lobbying organisations which these wealthy interests daily bring to bear on MPs at all levels.
By focussing public and political attention solely on illicit druga, the ACMD has served to divert such attention away from the huge psycho- pharmaceutical addictive substances sector, thus acting as a covert protective lobby for those bested interests.
Hopefully now that Alan Johnson has started to see through them and also acted, we will see some real progress towards a more drug-free UK society.
School Head
THE NUTT CASE
Is it un-reasonable to expect that any Psychiatrist, Neurologist or Pharma-cologist who presumes to advise on drugs should at least know what most of my school students know about “Cannabis”? Namely that that drug name covers a range of addictive substances of varying approximate strengths, including POT (1% of THC), WEED (7%), SKUNK (14%) and NEDERWEED (28%).
Nederweed is unquestionably a Class “A” drug, whilst Pot is Class “C”. But the bulk of our cannabis supply is Weed or (increasingly) Skunk, and they are both provenly psychosis generating Class “Bs”.
As a result it is utterly ridiculous for Nutt to claim that he is a source of truth in the drugs field when he recommends “cannabis” as a Class “C” substance.
I long ago learned that a majority of those who excuse the using of cannabis are usually trying to justify their own usage. But I have also noted that many psycho-pharmaceutical legalisers want our youth on so-called “soft” drugs because history shows that many will migrate to the “harder stuff”, and then on to profitable Methadone, Subutex and Psychiatric Counselling – all paid for by the taxpayer.
The ACMD and its ruling psycho-pharmaceutical membership has for years diverted attention away from the ravages of involuntary addiction created by prescription drugs. Now, to continue that strategy, Nutt rightly targets alcohol, but fails to recognise that price inflation is provenly not the solution, because every time the price of booze has gone up, it has had only a temporary impact on consumption whilst encouraging a cut-price criminal market for stolen and smuggled supplies.
If Nutt now intends to form an alternative ACMD, scientific logic dictates that it should be an “Advisory Council on Substance Addiction – Illegal, Licensed and Prescribed Dependency". If it does not cover ALL addictive substances – including those which Nutt and his fellow travellers prescribe and supply – it will be no more independent of vested interests than the ACMD has been, and I for one will want to know who his “backer” is.
more rubbish
Kathy stop boring us with your poorly researched, one sided, painfully bias articles that have no basis in scientific fact.
Also stop being a coward and start answering all the questions that bloggers are asking you. I would love to see the evidence behind some of your very questionable statements.
Or just get a new job, one that you are good at. Terrible waste of space
A very poorly researched article - I really cannot believe that you think the ACMD has some sinister legalistaion agenda, or that David Nutt is anything but an excellent scientist.
I would be fascinated to see your proof that alcohol is less harmful than cannabis.
"Meanwhile the 'Cannabis Dependency Units' as psychiatrists describe their first contact schizophrenia wards, continue to take their toll"
Really? Source?
Cannabis and children
Many thanks to Kathy Gyngell for her blog, it is a painstakingly accurate account of how we go to where we are in the debate begun by Professor Nutt in October. I was delighted that cannabis was reclassified back to Class B, this year, after downgrading in 2004. Our family has been seriously affected by the message that reclassification sent out - that cannabis was safe to smoke. Our son, began on skunk at 14. Once a handsome, ambitious boy he changed into someone we scarcely recognised, who stole and lied to fund the habit that began to consume him. Pleas from us to stop were met with a shrug; his mates knew better, it was safe.Our son 'stood by cannabis' as he now says, for as long as he could. This led to our having to exclude him for two years in order to protect our other children and ourselves. None of us will be the same again, the damage has been severe. For every drug user there is the family in the background, often forgotten by those who would like to see drugs liberalised and even legalised. Thousands of families have written to me since I went public with our story. All tell of their shame and distress as they witness their cannabis-using children become strangers who choose to throw away their lives. Parents readily blame themselves for their children's behaviour. After all cannabis is 'just a bit of puff, in't it?'. I would say that, on the contrary, skunk cannabis is one of the evils of our time. Most parents get no support for themselves or their children. Theirs is a private hell. Professor Nutt is wrong when he said on The Report 'Why should people be imprisoned for possessing something that effectively will only harm themselves?'. No one lives in isolation, we are all part of units in society and the main societal unit is the family. Families are all affected by drug use, many are destroyed by the use of skunk in childhood. Reclassification brought chaos to society; families were undermined. Many young people believed cannabis to be 'semi-legal' or even 'declassified'. There was too much confusion, which is why the status quo had to be restored and cannabis put back in its original category. Professor Nutt has admitted on TV that the ACMD decision to leave cannabis at Class C was not unanimous. Reclassification to C was a betrayal of a whole generation of young people, mainly boys, some of whom, at best will never fulfill their potential and become useful members of society. At worst many face a life dogged by mental illness. An extensive health education campaign should now follow the Government's wise decision to override the ACMD's advice not to reclassify. Professor Nutt's role was as an adviser only; if he wants to get involved in changing the law then he should get himself elected and enter politics.
dear Elisabeth
skunk,pot,weed is the same as booze,drink alcohol:-)
dear elizabeth
POT (1% of THC), WEED (7%), SKUNK (14%) and NEDERWEED (28%).
diffrent name for the same substance,does anyone know what is the diffrence between alcohol,booze and drink?
Wow
What a terribly misinformed opinion you have on the subject. More worrying is that Elisabeth Reichert is teaching children in this country. Are you actually for real Elisabeth? As surely you would know that 1. Pot is just a slang term for any form of cannabis (mainly a US one at that.) 2. Same applies for weed (although that is as common here as there) 3. Skunk is a strain that is nowhere near as widespread as people believe, what is widespread is actually sensimillia. 4. Skunk would class as a nederwiet in holland, which generally speaking again is just refering to sensimillia. So your suggesting a classification system on something you are totally naive to, that is the definition of utterly ridiculous.
I actually agree with Elisabeth on the classification of C being ridiculous as it should be legal, it is the least toxic pharmaceutically active substance known to man.
There is no inherent property in Cannabis that leads you onto other drugs. If anything the gateway theory exists because Cannabis is lumped in with these other illegal drugs and therefore creates an environment where if one wants to purchase Cannabis perhaps there might be other drugs available for purchase.
I think you actually raise an excellent point on this issue of prescription drugs Elisabeth, they are addictive, dangerous and rerely fit for purpose, but in a capitalist society treatment is preferable to the cure. If you really understood Cannabis and its many medicinal applications(it is a panacea), you would realise that the pharmaceutical companies would never want Cannabis legal as you can't patent a plant.
Let the drink alcohol
No one is saying there is no danger, what the ACMD is saying is that the danger puts cannabis squarely at class C.
Why can you not figure this out?
Do you really think cannabis is as bad as speed?
Debra - if Will started smoking cannabis when he was 14, then wasn't that when it was still class B? How was your family 'seriously affected by the message that reclassification sent out' if it hadn't happened yet?
Do you really think classification makes any difference to young peoples' decisions, or that they care what the home secretary or the ACMD thinks as they head out for the weekend? The dealers certainly dont - the penalties for dealing haven't changed. Can you provide any evidence to show that classification changes have impacted on use either way? Can the Government, or indeed the ACMD? Is it even being monitored?
I respect your concerns about cannabis related harms and sympathise with your experiences, but have never understood how you think increasing criminal penalties for vulnerable young people is the way to achieve a reduction in these harms.
I suspect it is more likely to alienate young people, make them distrust health messages from authority figures, and divert resources away from more effective prevention.
Isn't it interesting how all the things prohibition supporters are screaming about are the direct result of prohibition!
Take this comment for example from Debra Bell:
>>
Our son, began on skunk at 14.
>>
According to Bell's website William is now 21 (although he may be older by now) which means he began smoking cannabis sometime before 2002, when it was class B.
He wasn't alone of course and wouldn't be alone today. Because cannabis is sold by an unregulated, uncontrolled illegal industry often run by organised crime where the only qualification needed to be an employee is unaccountability, it's easy for kids to get their hands on it. All anyone needs is £10.
If there is any truth in the super-strong skunk scare (it is highly debatable) that increase in strength happened under prohibition with cannabis as class B and way before the Brixton experiment. Worse, it seems to have taken nearly 10 years for those supposedly in charge to even notice.
In truth street cannabis is highly variable in both strength and purity. Kids are far more likely to be smoking so-called “soap bar” than “skunk”. Soapbar is a low quality blend of such things as turps. Ketamine, boot polish, animal turds with maybe a sprinkling of cannabis, it’s called “solid” in street slang. This concoction is probably wrapped up in a tobacco filled joint just to make it worse. That is the real face of the illegal UK cannabis industry – cannabis moonshine supplied by the mob.
The massive increase in cannabis use that happened during the 1990's happened way before any move to class C when the “message” was the simplistic “just say no”.
People like Debra Bell and Kathy Gyngell may be well intentioned, I have no reason to doubt they are, but their conclusions are totally and utterly wrong. If they are concerned about children having easy access to vodka-strength cannabis then they really should be campaigning against the regime that created the problem, not arguing for more of the same.
The analogy is an old one, but none the less a good one: These people are like the man who realises he is in a hole and in sheer desperation digs faster. His reasoning is simple – he believes it will work and the reason he's still in his hole can only be because he hasn't been digging fast enough. The only result of course is a deeper hole. That's where we are with drug prohibition and it really is time we stopped digging.
For those who believe (and it is only a belief, there is no research to support the idea) that strong prohibition deters young people from using cannabis, let me tell you from direct personal experience it doesn't. I know it doesn't because it didn't. It didn’t deter me in 1973, back in the days when people were arrested and charged with traces and a prison term was a very real possibility.
Debra, you are in denial
Debra, your post only serves to show how out of touch with reality you are.
There's no doubts cannabis can be dangerous to adolescents.
But your story sounds like you should be blaming yourself but instead have decided to blame cannabis.
The fact is no one knows what brings on Schizophrenia in certain Adolescents.
Genetic pre disposition? most probably.
But until we have clearer answers ,does it seem fair to stigmatize people for something millions of people do safely every day?Something which SICK people who are in pain need?
We know Alcohol causes violence and most definitely cause psychosis, do we ban that?
No we regulate it in order to protect.
So its YOU and the government which have failed your family.
Cannabis is now freely available on every street corner, unregulated.
In Fact its more freely available now than it was 40 years ago when this war on drugs stupidity started.Also Strength has increased too.
So what are your laws serving and taxes actually paying for?
In the uk alone organised crime reaps many BILLIONS of pounds just through cannabis sales.
Cannabis which is grown HERE IN THIS COUNTRY.
Its a PLANT, its completely Unstoppable.
You and your crusade only keep criminals in jobs.
It exactly the same as the prohibition of alcohol in the USA.
They created the biggest black market of organised crime syndicates through the prohibition of Alcohol.
You have created the same problem with cannabis.
The War on Drugs Can never be won.
So its time to regulate and Educate same as we did with Alcohol and tobacco.
Undercut Criminals, regulate strength and purity.Then Educate people.
Hey , it worked with Alcohol and tobacco.
Can you imagine if your son had been caught with cannabis when he was 16?
Class b? possible 5 years in Jail?
Wonder if he could have handled that along with his cannabis induced schizophrenia?
Please think about what you are doing, as you seem to be blinded by you own prejudice and propaganda.
Cannabis users along with all drugs user are human beings too and do not deserve to be stigmatised by your ill informed propaganda.
Perhaps concentrate on looking after your family.
I know if my child was taking cannabis at 14.I Would know about it and would try and educate them.
Give them, stuff to steer them away from substance abuse.
Show them that life is great without any substances.
It seems you have failed as a parent to communicate with your child and need something to blame.
The level of this debate is insulting and stagnate
I'm a scientist and as a scientist I don't deal in nicknames and misnomers. I find it highly insulting to the both myself and the public if I have to 'dumb down' the way I communicate my work, it shows a lack of ability to teach the public and leaves them without the knowledge to really understand what they are being told.
So what is 'Skunk'? I see there are some 'experts' on this blog so maybe they can give me scientific definition and not insult me by reaching for the drug charity's urban (hip with the yoof talk) dictionary.
Poverty is intrinsically linked to problem drug use/abuse, so one has to wonder why advice from so called 'charitable' people costs so much! It can't possibly be serving any good for the people in need.
One also has to wonder why punishment is so often trumpeted as a necessary policy, when it is demonstrated as having no deterrent effect and when a criminal record is a certain way of sweeping the ladders out of poverty and the cycle of destructive attitudes and entrenching people in their suffering.
While this debate continues to exaggerate the harms of cannabis (more over but also under) we are not progressing toward any solutions to stop children using drugs, to help those with problems, to protect adults from the harms of prohibition (lack of regulation and prohibition).
As a point of information there is nothing written in law to say that alcohol etcetera cannot not be classified under the MDA, the MDA also does not state that prohibition is the only option of 'control'. The MDA states that the ACMD are to make regular reassessments of the classification of all drugs to take into account current evidence and that the ACMD can assess and advise a change in classification with or without a request from government. With a full commitment of members the ACMD is more than qualified to make policy decisions on drug classification with representatives from the police, education and addiction services as well as consulting the public and other relevant experts. To put it simply no single politician can ever have an equal or greater qualified argument for policy decision than the ACMD. The only thing that politicians can offer to the argument is the corruption of subjective morals, they are not elected by the majority, they are voted for being charismatic, they are rotten eggs and rotten eggs make a mess out of society.
it seems only Debra Bell fails to see the problem with her son was bad parenting.
I don't think any cannabis user would support young adults under 18 using cannabis indeed any drug for that matter. But as others have said this is almost a given under the current state of prohibition.
I am a supporter of personal freedom and individual responsibility not the totalitarian imposition of morals by the state. The fact that illegal drug users are criminalised and discriminated against while legal drug users are not is wholly hypocritcal and morally indefensible.Particuarly when the Governments Chief scientist states categorically that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.
How long are we going to maintain this hugely expensive state of prohibition it just makes the situation far worse. GOd only knows what our kids are smoking I bet it has hardly any cannabis in it at all. Cocaine is now predominantly adulterants that are far more dangerous than the pure drug. Succesive Governments have perpetuated this increase in harm to their own citizens it is they that have blood on their hands.
Debra Bell on BBC news channel
Debra,
I recall seeing you on the BBC news channel about 18 months ago. You said that your son's uncle - I don't recall if he was your brother or your partner's - had a history of mental illness.
As I understand it, the main indicator of mental health problems is genetic.
No one doubts that psychoactive drugs can trigger an episode. Causality, however, seems unlikely, as the rate of psychosis has remained constant, whilst the rate of cannabis use has changed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560 900
CEO Addiction Recovery Training Services
Makes you laugh really, when some frightened to be identified anonymous describes a well respected Conservative spokesperson like Kathy as "biased".
How can she possibly be biased when she is applauding the actions of a well respected Labour Minister like Alan Johnson?
Nobody is biased against a pseudo science like psychiatry. They are just being wise and cautious. And is it bias to expose how pharmacology makes gargantuan amounts of profit from creating addicts amongst both old and young.
From its very inception the ACMD has always been a tool of the pharmaceutical industry staffed by their cohorts and intended to protect their business from the condemnation it deserves for the seamy side of its activities.
If you want a perfect example of bias, just review the membership composition of the ACMD since its inception and up to a few weeks ago when Nutt's fellow travellers started to resign in an obviously co-ordinated political move intended to maintain their hold on UK drugs policy.
Of course cannabis is harmful. So is alcohol, and so are benzos, but we are not going to get sensible workable policies in any of these fields whilst the foxes are in charge of the hen house. i.e. when vested interest profit motives have a greater political importance than the population's health, wellbeing and productivity.
Get real guys.
Reasoned logic
What an excellent article, and how pathetic the responses from the rather illiterate, hysterical pro-legalisation lobby! Isn't it interesting how those who are probably suffering themselves from the effects of long-term cannabis use cannot articulate their views without descending into vitriol and acrimonious jibes aimed at those who try to propound scientifically-based hypotheses in reasonable terms?
On July 28, 2007, British medical journal 'The Lancet' published a study that indicated that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users. Official figures released by the Department of Health in January 2008 showed that since cannabis was downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug, the number of adults being treated in hospitals and clinics in England for its effects had risen to more than 16,500 a year. In addition, the number of children needing medical attention after smoking the drug had risen to more than 9,200.
It was Prof Louis Appleby, the national Director for Mental Health at the Department of Health, who told the ACMD at their review of cannabis in February 2006 that health professionals had for too long been complacent about the effects of cannabis on mental health, and that "now the evidence is pointing towards cannabis as a cause of severe mental illness". How odd that the ACMD should choose to ignore statistics which were available to it at the time of the review, as well as the considered view of an employed senior scientific government advisor, in order to recommend against reclassification. Even stranger is it that their erstwhile Chairman should seek now to criticise the government's decision to reclassify the drug.
One possible explanation for this dichotomy might be if some of the ACMD's scientists were to have links to pharmaceutical companies whose interests could lie in perpetuating the misery of drug addiction in order to supply quantities of anti-psychotic drugs, Methadone, benzodiazepines, etc., to sufferers. Or is this too cynical a view?
If cannabis is as dangerous as you are making out then surely that is actually a reason for legalisaion and control ?
Leaving cannabis in the control of criminal gangs helps who exactly ?
Shouldn't alcohol be made illegal because of its dangers to heath ?
Organised crime
Rosemary, ever heard of transference?
lol
I suggest you look into the Keele study.
As you seem to be cherry picking what you need for your argument.
Psychosis and schizophrenia rates haven't changed.
You are misquoting some bad correlative science.
Cannabis is more widely available than ever.
Purer, stronger and an abundance of it.
So how is the present policy protecting anyone?
The only people you protect are the criminals who deals drugs.
80% of them getting away with it undetected i might add.
Prohibition has made unscrupulous criminals very rich.
The war on drugs is a farce.
Draconian measures only serve to alienate people further.
Pushing illegal drugs prices through the roof and make them even more profitable for criminals.
I notice instead of defending any points you have instead chosen to misquote correlative science and abuse it for your own prejudice.
You are morally and mentally bankrupt.
Your rant towards the end on pharmacology companies is bordering on delusional paranoia.
You have revealed exactly what YOUR mindset is
Thanks for that.
Mrs
Thank you Kathy for this, and thank you again Debra for pushing so hard for recognition of this drug and its impact. The recent sacking of Professor Nutt, has been an unhelpful episode in this debate but maybe it has exposed certain gaps in the institutions which we rely on as citizens. It seems to me that scientific research is incomplete without anecdote, and the latter incomplete without scienfic research. Thus it is uneasy to rely on either. I have always felt that the categorisation of drugs in this country is unhelpful; it is either an illegal drug or it is not. A substantial proportion of heroine users will admit that they started on cannabis. An important point here is that cannabis primes the brain for other drugs (Mary Brett). I do not recall Professor Nutt or his team considering, for example, this aspect of the drug. Recent cases in the press of police raids on cannabis farms, also surely testify to an uneasy relationship between 'use' which no one knows how to rank, and supply (cultivation) which are serious criminal activities. We need a coherent, intelligent message here; it is the police, the doctors and nurses, the teachers and the families who are at the front line, and without a clear government message, how can any of us truly care for our young people?
Mellanie Philips says cannabis is bad and GW does
--------
CEO Addiction Recovery Training Services
Kenneth Eckersley 2009-11-27 10:47:48
Makes you laugh really, when some frightened to be identified anonymous describes a well respected Conservative spokesperson like Kathy as "biased".
--------
I think your will find that most MPs read from the same hymn sheet with regards to science and evidence, that hymn sheet reads "If it wasn't fabricated to meet our agenda then it isn't true." A typical flat earth mentality which is a disease on society.
And your argument is not for impartiality, it is for your agenda to be favoured other everything else, which is very apparent by you resorting insults and cheep attacks on people based on the dodgy ethics of a minority of people with similar degrees. Just to let you know I am concerned about the ethics of your company when you come here suggesting that people like you should get there nests feathered by the harmful continuation of ignorance and prohibition.
While all you addiction 'experts' (I have to laugh when you term psychiatry as a pseudo science, as it is the discipline which identifies and diagnoses the only addiction related to cannabis - your primary growth market) lobby for punishment based on moral decisions, not evidence and attack science, people are going to suffer. I seriously doubt whether any of you actually understand schizophrenia beyond the level of a Victorian. I find no reason to spend time and resources on trying to prevent schizophrenia, as this takes resources away from treatment and the search for cures. To prevent schizophrenia we would have to start with eliminating the highest risks, top 3 are genetic/family history, bereavement and central nervous system damage and there is no way we could or even would consider trying to prevent those factors. With the vast majority of the population starting with a 1% risk of schizophrenia a 40% increase in risk due to cannabis would not even raise it above 2% I am not convinced by a the suggest of a simple black & white causative link between cannabis and schizophrenia, I am inclined to believe that cannabis use during puberty can change/damage the CNS is a subtle but significant way, this change/damage is not present in adult users of cannabis, so I believe there is no increase in risk for adults. On top of the Frisher et al (2009: in Schizophrenia Research) found not link between the trend of cannabis prevalence and schizophrenia incidence, so trying to prevent cannabis by the population may be wasted effort (I still think children shouldn't distract themselves with drugs). Professor Nutt was right in saying that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis, for starters there are a number of specific mental ilnesses caused by alcohol use/abuse and alcohol represents 4 times the risk of getting schizophrenia than is suggested for cannabis. Alcohol also causes noticeable and serious CNS damage at any stage in life, so starting alcohol at 16 represents the risk increase as if you start at 60. But even after all this we don't see hundreds of patients with schizophrenia due to alcohol use, that is not because the science is wrong it is because the increased risk of getting schizophrenia is still very low.
A bit off topic but my final point: Worried about the profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry? What are you doing hanging around with the free-market capitalist supporting tory party!
I don't think anyone in this debate should be resorting to personal attacks on anyone else. This obviously applies to Kathy's critics here as much as her supporters. I certainly don't question Kathy's or Debra's good intentions or think they are being deceitful - I just think they are mistaken, and view the science and policy debate through the prism of their misunderstandings.
Rosemary - I don't speak for anyone else on here - so please tell me where I have been hysterical, pathetic, illiterate (excusing a typo - its a blog forum for heavens sake), vitriolic or acrimonious. How about responding to the specific points I've made? lack of answers to perfectly reasonable critical questions does seem to be a running theme in Kathy's discussion threads (*waves at Kathy*). If people past question on my blogs i try my best to answer them.
I also find it disappointing that you assume people who disagree with you, or challenge the tenets of the drug war/prohibition (not actually an unreasonable position when you consider where the last 40 years have got us), must be, by default, either inveterate drug users/pot heads or in the pay of big-pharma. I have heard this same line repeatedly over the years and you need to understand that since I am neither this is not only profoundly offensive (and doing exactly what you are accusing others of), but also that it is about as far from the 'science' you proclaim to support as it is possible to be. And just because there are some other childish/inappropriate posts here doesn't make yours acceptable.
If you take a step back and pause for a moment....all of you...you will realise that everyone in this debate wants to see the harms caused by drugs reduced. The debate is about how to achieve that goal.
re: Reasoned logic
Rosemary Burns wrote:
What an excellent article, and how pathetic the responses from the rather illiterate, hysterical pro-legalisation lobby! Isn't it interesting how those who are probably suffering themselves from the effects of long-term cannabis use cannot articulate their views without descending into vitriol and acrimonious jibes aimed at those who try to propound scientifically-based hypotheses in reasonable terms?
erm, touche??
Senior Project Worker (Homelessness & Addictions)
I would suggest it is fair comment to say that all drugs (Cannabis/alcohol/diamorphine etc etc) are used in Society; whether we like it or not. The fact that one is 'legal' and the other 'illegal' is academic. It is how the drug is used or misused that should be addressed by statutory agencies working in this field. Yes, there are valid arguments for legalising ALL drugs (taken under medical supervision) to lessen the time/expense on the legal & medical services. There are also arguments for NOT legalising illicit drugs. To conclude, this debate will rumble on forever and a day whilst 'workers at the coal face' carry on their given work.
A few comments.
________________________________________
Most of the links given in this article are broken.
________________________________________
I don't care how many pages a study has ... it's quality which counts not quantity.
________________________________________
Why the heavy mix of subjective bias? The professors scale of harm has no relation to illegality. It includes alcohol and tobacco because they are drugs.
________________________________________
Y ou say that mortality rates for cannabis are unknown. This is false, there have been no related deaths.
________________________________________
Please define skunk. Do you mean the strain skunk? Measurably, how does skunk vary from the 'usual' cannabis?
________________________________________
Medicinal marijuana has controlled ratios of THC:CBD.
________________________________________
Why would Jackie Smith ask the ACMD to look at the evidence again? Is it because she was hell bent on cannabis being a class B?
________________________________________
The ACMD fully explained the relationship between cannabis and psychosis/schizophrenia. I don't know why you are questioning this?
________________________________________
Wh y thank the ACMD for stoned youngsters on our streets? Surely this is a result of dealers selling their product to children?
________________________________________
Finally, to call this "the end of an affair" would be laughable. What I have gathered, is that there is no legitimate reason for cannabis being a class B drug. This is not the fault of the poor Professor Nutt but the result of poor, unjustified, government policy.
________________________________________
Re: The level of this debate is insulting and stag
Philip Smith 2009-11-27 00:12:06:
"So what is 'Skunk'? I see there are some 'experts' on this blog so maybe they can give me scientific definition and not insult me by reaching for the drug charity's urban (hip with the yoof talk) dictionary."
I cannot give you a scientific definition because I am not a scientist, but I will try to answer your question in the best way I can.
Skunk is a strain of cannabis called skunk#1, if memory serves it was bred in the US and then taken to the Netherlands and further tinkered with. It was originally a cross between 25% Afghani, 25% Mexican Acapulco Gold and 50% Columbian Gold strains. It has been inbred since 1978 and is now a stabilized homogeneous strain, with a THC content of 16.5%.
Since then it has been crossed with a host of other strains to such an extent that it is now present in probably 80% or more of the cannabis grown today.
The Government/media have latched onto the term as it can be seperated from "the dope your grandpa used to smoke" and punted out as more potent. In actual fact there were strains in the 60's and 70's that were just as strong as the cannabis of today, Thai grass & Columbian Gold for example could have a THC content of between 15 to 20% no different to todays cannabis.
Hope this has helped with your understanding a little.
sorry i just had too
ok elizabeth reichart your children as mis informed.
“Cannabis”? Namely that that drug name covers a range of addictive substances of varying approximate strengths, including POT (1% of THC), WEED (7%), SKUNK (14%) and NEDERWEED (28%)."
MORE PROPAGANDA.listen up pot at 1% thc sorry? but thats called soapbar or rocky and is mostly rubber/camelpoo/ boot polish/henna/glues mixed in with about 1% cannabis and is highly toxic and possibly deadly.surely becuase this drug isnt regulated and sold by criminals these guys sell this crap to your children.
another fault is you have weed at 7% skunk at 14% and nederweed at 28% sorry but thats laughable.its all weed and basically ranges from 7-20% thc(where do u get the mega 28% from? complete lies the highest ever was 21%.skunk is no different from other cannabis its simply a different strain and has been around since 1980.its a cross between columbian mexican strains etc.
also debera bell all this cannabis psychosis isnt being repeated in the netherlands and they have lower drug usage i wonder why this is opposite to what debera bell says?the mere fact her boys uncle had mental problems convinces me the genetic trait was to blame.dont mess with drugs at a young age.but because debera is so pig headed and wants drugs to remain in the hands of criminals they are free to pollute them with chemicals and offer them to your children.eventually using this method and dealers results in being offered class a drugs which is where the gateway drug myth comes from.are you lot so blind ull continue down the same road the war on drugs has taken us? its easier to get drugs than alcohol and it will remain so becuase we have no control over them.until drugs and taken out of criminal hands and sold stricly to adults only with higher punishments for selling to minors then drug problems will get worse and more young william bells with emerge.
congratulations debera
you fool
the logical conclusion
also on the health side of cannabis use smoking actually bring in a surplus tax profit and so actually benifits the nhs.cannabis money could transform the nhs and we could simply ban mixing tobacco and cannabis like the dutch cofee shop model.cannabis on its own vaporized or eaten instead of burned of smoked is actually harmless.infact its actually benificial as a pain killer or depression anxienty treatment.the fact to usa is rushing ahead in medical cannabis should open some blind peoples eyes on this.
we are simply denying this treatment to sick people and forcing innocent people into jails.instead many prefer the harmful legal drugs to be forced upon the sick when infact there are plagued with side effects.anyone who has tried depression/high strength pain killers will testify to this.
so people there are two sides to the cannabis story and people are refusing to read them both.logical debate comes to only one conculsion.
regulate cannabis and stop drug dealers
Sacking Nutt was correct
It is interesting how so much of the debate here is still about cannabis harm and therefore its classification. Since Professor Nutt was forced to conceed that even the ACMD was not unanimous on those two issues, that continued debate is surely sterile.
In the UK the legalisation/liberalisation debate and classification of cannabis are now dead issues and will not be reopened in the forseeable future.
Government and certainly the Mental Health profession within government plainly thinks that downgrading cannabis was a mistake. Governments rarely admit to such mistakes It is very unlikely to be repeated. Steve Rolles had better get over that. His job just got much harder.
It is interesting how Nutt has played the martyr. The Home Secretary said he had lost confidence in Nutt, given Nutt's behaviour both before and after he was sacked, it is quite easy to see why.
It is a fact of Nutt's life that he has been heavily involved with the pharmaceutical industry, he recorded his substantial personal holding of wealth in one particular company for the world to see.
Kathy Gyngell never seems to question motives. I do. I note that Professor Nutt has written about inventing a substitute for alcohol. I note that Robin Room said (in the same journal-Editor, one D Nutt) that inventing the substance was not the problem.
I note that Professor Nutt, with regular liberalisation lobbyist, Colin Blakemore and others, set out a new scale of harms merging alcohol & tobacco in there. I note the Home Office showed not the slightest interest in that.
I note that Professor Nutt has been cosy for years with other liberalisation/legalisation lobbyists.
Is it any surprise the Home Secretary lost confidence?
The only conclusion I have been able to reach about Professor Nutt's behaviour, is that in order to further his ambition for a commercial replacement for alcohol, (presumably to be made by a friendly pharmaceutical company), he was seeking to alter the terms of the whole debate around all drug use-in much the same way as Steve Rolles. This, if I am right, is his personal agenda.
I have no trouble with him, or anyone, having that dubious agenda, but I do think working on his own commercial agenda from within the ACMD and certainly as head of the technical committee and later as council Chairman, was fundamentally wrong.
It was not clear to me that all the fellow members of the ACMD quite understood the nature of the Nutt gameplan.
I am assured that many more of them now do.
David, ill try to respond to your points;
"Since Professor Nutt was forced to conceed that even the ACMD was not unanimous on those two issues, that continued debate is surely sterile."
I think the original decision was unanimous the latter two overwhelmingly in favour of c. They are a committee of around 30 – overwhelming majority has to do sometimes, and some difference of opinion is inevitable and probably a good thing, certainly not of any cataclysmic importance in this debate. It should be noted that there are also individuals on the committee who represent organisations like ACPO who, whilst supposedly acting independently, clearly vote as instructed by the organisation (in ACPOs case, back to B having originally been supportive of C). Those instructions are not necessarily based on the science, and political considerations weigh heavily. Many of these organisations serve and are funded by the Government and subject to pressure (if you want your conspiracy maybe your looking in the wrong place?). ACPO’s risible presentation to the committee in the most recent evaluation demonstrated this with alarming clarity.
"In the UK the legalisation/ liberalisation debate and classification of cannabis are now dead issues and will not be reopened in the forseeable future."
Any objective reading of the media, public mood, and Transform's ever rising profile and influence would suggest differently re legalisation, and repeatedly denying the fact doesn't make it so. That said, you conflate two issues here. Classification up or down has noting to do with legalisation/regulation debate. Transform didn't call for or campaign for reclassification - we want cannabis brought within a regulated legal framework as the current approach has transparently failed horribly on all fronts (including, ironically, driving the market to stronger cannabis), and legal regulation can reduce harms associated with production, supply and use.
If any move by the council to classify a drug more in line with the evidence on relative harms is - by you and Kathy's reasoning - by default part of liberalisation/legalisation conspiracy then please tell us how you think the classification system should function? What do you think it is, or is supposed to do? And why, again, do you never mention the various occasions when drugs are moved up the rankings, or legal drugs brought within the MDA? How does that fit with the ACMD-truther world view?
"Government and certainly the Mental Health profession within government plainly thinks that downgrading cannabis was a mistake."
Government decided it was a political mistake after 'soft on drugs' attacks from the Tories and opponents in the media, backed up with skunk panic misrepresentations of the science. The first revisit of the decision was ordered in the run up to the election to diffuse such attacks, the second, the new PM attempting to assert his moral authority. As you well know there was a range of opinion amongst mental health professionals, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Murray for example, has not called for reclassification back to B - he said it was irrelevant. MIND, who gave evidence at the evidence session you took such meticulous notes at, said the same thing. cannabis is risky, telling people about risks is important - classification is a distraction and theres no evidence it makes any difference either way (if you have some, please share it).
"I note that Professor Nutt, with regular liberalisation lobbyist, Colin Blakemore and others, set out a new scale of harms merging alcohol & tobacco in there. I note the Home Office showed not the slightest interest in that."
Actually the lancet paper was the ACMD making public there methodology for assessing and ranking drug harms. The Home Office made no complaint about it. The HO explanations for why alcohol and tobbacco are immunised from the harm-classification/criminal penalty logic that defines the MDA are every bit as intellectually impoverished as yours. We classify drugs by relative harms and base policy on that or we dont - you simply cant have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.
"I note that Professor Nutt has been cosy for years with other liberalisation/legalisation lobbyists."
So have you old pal. But seriously, guilt by association with people, who are deemed sinister on the basis that they disagree with you, is pretty lame.
re Nutt's other activities - I agree they are a concern and I don't agree with everything he does or says by any stretch. We have suggested in our recent submission to the HO ACDMD review that pharma company (and alcohol and tobacco company) links must be questioned
, and guidelines clarified. I have critiqued Nutt's work, and the ACMD's, publicly and repeatedly. That said the bigger picture is not about Nutt - even he was a lightening rod for some important debates. It is about a pattern of suppressing dissent, not publishing unflattering research, and the relentless propaganda and spin that dresses up failure as success, that have characterized Government drug policy for the last decade or more. Transform don't fit into any of your big pharma conspiracies so don't tar us with that brush, and lets talk about the issues and the evidence like adults.
David Raynes' qualifications
My I ask Mr Raynes what his scientific, or other, qualifications are?
Is it worth betting my pension on his expertise and knowledge?
Thank you.
It's a point of principle - not necessarily scien
People do stupid stuff all the time. Hell - when I was 15 I took 9 paracetamols with some chocolate milk because someone said it would give me a buzz. I stuck my head in a plastic bag with some deodorant. I drink half a pint of spirits.
The point is that people will always want to - and find a way to - abuse any kind of chemical or substance that's out there. The real question is therefore should you criminalise them under the law? I would argue not. It's more a point of principle than one of science: in a free society people should be free to take even stupid decisions. The actual challenge is an educational one - persuading people that it isn't wise to follow a particular course.
Legal prohibitions on murder don't stop murder.
"Legal prohibitions on murder don't stop murder."
I really think thats a stupid argument. Murder and consenting adult drug use are entirely different moral, legal and practical propositions, and not usefully compared or conflated. A clear distinction needs to be made between Mala in se, and Mala prohibitum crimes respectively.
wrong argument
"Legal prohibitions on murder don't stop murder."
I think this is a flawed and unhelpful argument, even if true - which I doubt.
Adult consenting drug use is not morally, legally or practically comparable with murder, and the two are not usefully compared or conflated in this debate. It is important to understand the difference between mala in se and mala prohibitum crimes and not confuse the two.
CEO Addiction Recovery Training Services
It never ceases to amaze me how one's own activities monitor one's viewpoint (and a desire to protect one's activities at any cost) in a debate like this.
Although I managed to conquer a long held major tobacco habit and a liking for alcohol, I have never used cannabis or any of the other well known addictive drugs.
As a consequence, my only contact with cannabis has been when training all types of cannabis addicts in rehab to get themselves off their damaging habit.
It is THEIR fully experienced views on
the drugs market on which I depend, and it is my own direct observation of their broken lives and severely damaged health condition which demonstrates the real consequences of such substance usage.
One of the most significant factors one observes in the behaviour of such addicts, particularly whilst they are still in the usage stage, is their willingness and ability to lie and lie and lie. To invent arguments to support continuation of their craving and particularly reasons for demanding a continuation of their supplies.
The only people who would want to promote the use of cannabis are either those with no real knowledge or personal experience of how it affects others or a desire to continue their own habit, and I find that anybody who has seen the real results of cannabis addiction on a family member or in a rehab environment has little doubt about what cannabis is and what it does - no matter how it is named or classified.
So let's cut the cr*p and get real. Cannabis is a harmful and addictive substance whether it is legal or illicit. Motoring under its influence kills or maims passengers and public, and one tube train driver I helped was well aware of how many near misses there have been in that profession.
Professor Heather Ashton said quite accurately that trying to convince cannabis users that it affects their memory is quite impossible because they just can't remember how good their memory used to be.
And memory loss is just one minor result of cannabis usage. Other results you wouldn't want in your family.
Ken
Ken,
"It never ceases to amaze me how one's own activities monitor one's viewpoint (and a desire to protect one's activities at any cost) in a debate like this.
Although I managed to conquer a long held major tobacco habit and a liking for alcohol, I have never used cannabis or any of the other well known addictive drugs.
As a consequence, my only contact with cannabis has been when training all types of cannabis addicts in rehab to get themselves off their damaging habit."
And you then take your viewpoint only from the minority who present with cannabis problems. That would be like a teetotal councillor who works with alcoholics taking a view on drinking solely based on his clients.
Write only blog?
Is this a write only blog? I thought the idea of blogs was to encourage discussion between the blog owner, Kathy, and interested correspondents.
I have yet to see Kathy respond to *any* messages on her blog. Most of the others don't respond to comments to their postings, all we get is fanatical ramblings from the likes of David Raynes.
This blog is a waste of disc space.
Why are the prohibition supporters here still ranting on about the harms of cannabis? Like someone said earlier even if cannabis is as harmful and addictive as you say it is at what point does this justify stronger enforcement of a regime that doesn't control this 'harmful' drug at all?
All prohibition does is submit control of this drug to an unregulated market.
Surely if you want to protect our children a good first step would be to take the market and put it somewhere they can't get at it.
In my experience legalisation and regulation of a drug combined with age limits are far more effective methods of keeping it out of the hands of children than prohibition.
Alcohol is terribly dangerous to young people, and we are all aware of what happened when we attempted to prohibit it.
Where is your argument supporting prohibition other than repeatedly stating possible harms of the drug?
rubbish!
As a medical cannabis user for over twenty years I find your 'blog' badly researched and propagandist. You must wor for the daily mail - as to Murrey's research, it has long been debunked as nonsense, badly researched and badly presented, filled with inaccuracy and personal opinion - evidence of a connection between mental illness and cannabis is unfounded and supposition on many levels. there has not been a rise in schizophrenia in line with increased cannabis use across the world. This fact alone makes your 'blog' nonsense!
wow kathy you certainly know how to pack a punch! there is enough here to keep me busy for quite some time. I am always amazed at how complicated out field can feel at times but never suprised at the amount of personal agendas and ego trips that can unfortunetly be so damaging to so many.
if only theses and political agendas could be set aside to actually do what we know the research tells us is best for the moment, untill more is revealed but untill then looks like more wading through a minefield of toxic treacle.
Thanks alot for this.