| Dear Mr Williams, Many
thanks for the further information supplied regarding the BBC series,
The
Cannabis Trade. I am happy to have this opportunity to answer the
additional
points raised. Once again, this response comes from the BBC and
it is not
appropriate that it is displayed on any website which provides
ordering services
for seeds, equipment or information aimed at assisting in
the cultivation
of an illegal substance. -------------------------------------- I
do not accept that restriction nor the producers right to impose it. The BBC's
response to a complaint is a matter of public record. -------------------------------------- You
made the following additional points - which I have included and will
deal
with below: "I made the point that the dangers we see and which you
described
- indeed the whole nature of the trade - are caused by the
illegality of cannabis,
the policy of prohibition. My complaint is centred
on the fact that you ignored
this causal factor entirely. It's as if a
programme made during American alcohol
prohibition about the dangers of
moonshine ignored the role of prohibition
in the creation of the mob." The series
did not set out to address the question of whether cannabis
should be legalised.
That is not to say that there isn't a valid debate in
the issues you raise
but it does not form part of a series on the Cannabis
Trade. Unfortunately
the issue of decriminalising cannabis does not enjoy
much public support:
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the
independent body of experts
examining cannabis classification, commissioned
a MORI poll which shows that
fewer than 10 per cent of the 1,000 people
questioned thought Cannabis should
be legalised. The overwhelming response
is that Cannabis is rightly criminalised
and penalties should remain in
force. -------------------------------------- This
is not addressing the issue at hand. Whether or not cannabis law reform is popular
or not is irrelevant to the fact that the illegal trade we see is a direct result
of prohibition. -------------------------------------- Obviously
this does not accord with your own view but the Home Office
invites comments
from all of those in society and if you feel the law is
wrong then there are
routes for trying to change it. Drug laws will always
involve some of problems
you refer to - the prohibition of alcohol caused
problems, but also brought
health benefits and those issues are debated
long and hard by those studying
the prohibition years. You could say that
with 4,000 British people dying
each year through alcohol related liver
disease there is a very valid question
over its use in society but again,
this was not the focus of our series. -------------------------------------- Again,
irrelevant to the point at hand -------------------------------------- With
relation to the information on the supply of Cannabis you make the
point:
"The phenomenon of large scale cannabis "grow ops" is down to the
exploitation of the demand for cannabis. The market is huge and very
profitable
and the gap in the market caused by the government's policy (and
that of the
UN which our government supports) has created the opportunity
for the trade
we now see. It is the simple laws of supply and demand in
operation in an
unregulated framework, a typical problem caused by
prohibition". Once
again, the series examined the trade and the many problems faced
through large
scale illegal cultivations but it did not deal with the issue
of drug legalisation.
It would not be reasonable to deal with the subject
as you propose - in the
same way that programmes on theft do not take as
their starting point whether
or not the activity should be legalised, even
given the appetite for cheap
stolen goods. No one disputes that there is a
demand for the drug - the young
users on the series talked of wanting to
take it but it is not legal and the
supply of it involves illegal acts
which cause many problems for police and
the wider society. -------------------------------------- Again,
an irrelevant comment. The cause of the situation is prohibition and the way the
resulting illegal trade works. This was not addressed in the series. -------------------------------------- You
make the point in relation to the Canadian approach: "The message from
the Canadian initiative is surely that law enforcement had failed and the
new, non criminal methods were proving effective?" As we said in the
programme, the fire safety initiative was proving extremely effective and
was compared in academic research to more traditional routes of law
enforcement.
The Canadian Government does not support a policy of
legalisation of Cannabis
and that issue does not form any part in judging
the effectiveness of this
approach to domestic cultivation. -------------------------------------- My
point was indeed that a law enforcement approach - as we have in this country
- didn't work in Canada, whereas a civil approach seems to, albeit in a restricted
area. The conclusion from this can only be that a move away from an enforcement
lead approach would also work here, but that point wasn't made. -------------------------------------- In
addition to dealing with the comments above I have referred to the more
detailed
critique posted on your web site and the documents you refer to.
It would
have been inconceivable that this series would have mentioned the
warning
you reference on batches of herbal and skunk type Cannabis
"contaminated
with microscopic glass like beads." As the Government makes
clear in
that same document: "Cannabis is a substance harmful to health"
and their advice could not be clearer: "to avoid the risk of contaminated
Cannabis completely patients should be advised to stop smoking cannabis" -------------------------------------- Except
for the fact that perhaps 4 million or so people do not heed that advice and are
therefore at risk, and that the danger is created by the uncontrolled nature of
a prohibition market. This situation of contamination only exists because of prohibition.
It is highly relevant to any discussion about the nature of the trade. -------------------------------------- Regarding
the issue of strength and in particular the work of Dr Les King
on cannabis
potency, he has found that over 80 per cent of Cannabis tested
from police
confiscations was found to be the higher potency sinsemilla -
these findings
are broadly in line with research undertaken by Peter Clark,
Marc Brown and
David Potter. This research forms part of the data being
submitted to the
Advisory Council and whilst surveying potency levels of an
illegal substance
will have difficulties the efficacy and the methods used
by Dr King are not
disputed by those on the ACMD. Dr King will also be
analysing the CBD content
of the material seized. -------------------------------------- Actually
the shortcomings of the way the data is collected were acknowledged in the recent
ACMD public meeting in London (I was there). Specifically, the way the samples
are being collected is hardly statistically valid.. Also, as this data is being
compared to older data in order to determine a change over time, the reliability
of the older data is also important and there is surely no dispute that is unreliable. --------------------------------------
You make the point that CBD concentrations
in cannabis have never been
routinely measured. We would refer to the study
undertaken by Dr David
Potter on the cannabinoid content of the different
forms of illicit
cannabis. In the paper, "Potency of Cannabinoids in
Cannabis published in
the Journal of Forensic Science in January 2008. He
details his analysis of
452 samples seized by police during 2004/5 and concludes
by saying: "The
current trends in cannabis use suggest that those susceptible
to the
harmful psychological effects associated with THC are at ever greater
risk.
This is due to the combined rise in potency and popularity of sinsemilla
and the absence of CBD in this product" -------------------------------------- A
study of 452 samples in 2004/5 is not going to give an indication of the change
in CBD concentration over the past 10 or more years. In any case, CBD has not
been routinely measured, if it's been measured at all, that is a fact. But as
the above comment implies, the level of CBD may well be a very important issue.
The reason it's changed of course - if it has - is due to prohibition. -------------------------------------- Finally
you refer to the series as "a promotion of the present government's
agenda
regarding prohibition. " This is not just our government's agenda
- the
view that Cannabis is a dangerous drug has shaped laws across the
world. Our
series did not deal with this issue and we appreciate that you
would have
liked us to. The Cannabis Trade was a well researched and well
received series
which shed light on the dangers posed by the increasing
domestic cultivation
of Cannabis. -------------------------------------- The
point stands. At no time has my complaint been based on any claim that cannabis
is "safe", simply that the regime we have now makes it more dangerous
and has created the situation the programme claims to be investigating. -------------------------------------- Whilst
I appreciate you continue to have concerns with this programme, if
you wish
to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the
Editorial Complaints
Unit. You will need to do this in writing to the
following address: Editorial
Complaints Unit (ECU)
BBC 5168 White City
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS. -------------------------------------- Actually
I phoned the contact number given on the BBC website and talked to a very helpful
person who has taken the complaint forward to the "ESU" - escalative
complaints unit. Apparently the ECU is the next step. The person I talked to agreed
that the first reply I received, being of a private nature, did not constitute
a formal BBC response. -------------------------------------- Again
thank you for taking the time to contact the BBC. Please be assured
your further
concerns have been registered.
Thank
you once again for taking the time to contact us. Yours
sincerely Sue Mitchell
Producer Cannabis
Trade
Radio 4 | 
