I am fit, healthy and don’t abuse alcohol or take class “A” drugs. I’m not depressed and have never been involved in any crime apart from the fact that I have used marijuana for many years. At almost 60, what I want to know is when I can relax, stop looking over my shoulder and grow my own plants in my own garden for my own use. The Netherlands have a good balance of 5 plants per household and fines for people who grow more, they also tax the coffee shops and use that revenue to help care for people who have a real PROBLEM with substance abuse.

from personal experience, when i was in amsterdamn and i was exposed to the very very potent strong strains of cannabis. You merely use less quantity to get the desired effect…I like to think that it works like that for alot of things…if the sugars sweeter you use less of it in your tea…you get me? anyway we can all agree that prohibition is not working and that any form of relief in cannabis laws is beneficial and eradicates problems that are around now.
Peace

You seem to be concerned about “Skunk” like it is somehow a new thing. In the minds of most users it is just a slang term for uncured, domestically grown marijuana. The term is actually the name of a particular strain grown in Northern California in the late 1980s (A hybrid or popular varieties from Thailand, Mexico, Afghanistan and Columbia). It was one of the first strains grown indoors by growers in the UK in the early 1990s so the name stuck as a slang for any domestically grown marijuana. It is not necessarily any stronger than the best strains available in the 1960s or 1970s (Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Columbian, Thai sticks, Jamaican Sensimelia etc). Potency (or the THC level as you term it) is not just a matter of genetics but also when the plant is harvested, how it is stored, cured or even how carefully it is trimmed. The real dangers in skunk lie in the chemicals used to grow it, mold/fungus and the fact that users mix it with tobacco (often cigarette tobacco which is very dangerous when smoked without it’s original filter).
I wonder what your views are on Hashish ? Up until 20 years ago most of the cannabis used in Britain and Europe was hashish. As I am sure you know this substance is the refined extract of resin glands from female cannabis flowers and much more potent than the original cannabis plant it was taken from. So the product used by most people in the 1970s was probably more potent (THC rich) than your modern day “skunk”.

May I suggest a trip to Holland – Ask in some of the better coffeeshops, The Hash/Hemp museum or seed shops and they will set you straight. People are often reluctant to talk about it in the UK so many people are left to form their views from the ill-informed media coverage.

Even If I am wrong and your concern is warranted I still do not see how prohibition helps matters or how this is really any different to alcohol. (Remember most young people have easier access to alcohol and every week young people die from overdosing on it)

There are many people with poor mental health who aren’t being diagnosed, let alone treated, by their GPs or sometimes their psychiatrists, who are saying that they can’t get a true picture of their mental state until the cannabis is out of the picture. The problem is that they are unable to get cannabis out of the picture, and you get a vicious circle set up.

Interestingly the profile of people suffering severe mental illness has not changed over the past few decades and there has been no increase in rates of psychosis in that time (check out previous blog entries), population studies don’t provide evidence that cannabis is actually making the situation worse as was claimed perhaps rather unwisely a few years ago.

We may all be subject to various vulnerabilities in life though, the thing that makes us adults is the right to look after ourselves as we see fit. If something doesn’t suite you, it’s up to you to avoid doing it. It certainly is not the role of the police to protect your health.

Assuming there were a need to restrict the levels of THC (actually it’s the relative proportions of THC and CBD that might be important) that’s dead easy to do; simply don’t allow the commercial production of certain strains. Cannabis isn’t random; the type of plant you get is determined by the seed you plant, just like all plants.

Proper regulation of a legal commercial cannabis market would be easy infact.

Another point in passing, cannabis has been around and used by humans for several thousand years, why do you think it’s only in the past 20 or so years these super strength varieties have emerged, if indeed there is any truth in that claim? Could it not, just possibly, be due to the corrupting effect of prohibition on the economies of the trade?

I would argue though that all that’s really needed is proper labelling, laws to protect children from the commercial trade, laws to ensure dealers are fit and proper people and which allow consumers redress when things go wrong. At present under prohibition the only requirement to be a dealer is unaccountability and none of this protection is possible.

If a government legalised cannabis, how would it (a)ensure that only cannabis with lower levels of THC and higher ones of cannabidiol were sold, and (b)close down cannabis farms producing the stuff that leads either to somebody developing psychotic illnesses or spending a couple of decades in a low motivational state?

1. Produced or growing from within.
2. Originating or produced within an organism, tissue, or cell.

If you mean amongst people who already suffer depression then maybe cannabis isn’t going to do them any good, indeed cannabis isn’t the only thing such people should avoid. But you should know anecdotal evidence also suggests that some people with depression benefit from cannabis use, even of the high THC variety. I suggest we stick to science rather than relying on what people say. Your claim is probably more relevant to sufferers of schizophrenia actually, rather than depression.

However, such a group would ideally be considered a vulnerable minority (along with children), deserving of protection from the law rather than being treated as criminals and the existence of a vulnerable minority is no reason to restrict the freedoms of the vast majority who are at no such risk.

However, you are right to say that CBD has anti psychotic effects and it may be the case that some vulnerable people should avoid low CBD varieties although that is by no means proven. But again that is a legalisation argument – ie A for proper labelling and regulated sales, not an argument for prohibition in any way shape or form.

Regarding the horse riding analogy – which is outside the scope of this blog which is cannabis related – you clearly don’t understand the point the prof was making. He was not making a judgement on the merits of either activity, but simply on the risks involved with each. Horse riding, which may be a good healthy activity is non the less dangerous, but despite these dangers we don’t ban it.

I do wonder though – and this is not the point Prof Nutt was making – what the risk from horse riding would be if we were to forbid official riding schools and left the pastime in the hands of an uncontrolled illegal trade? I doubt if it would become safer as a result.

There are of course unethical aspects to the sale of alcohol, ie strong lager/cider being sold at low prices. The makers of Special Brew etc are well aware that many of their clients are problematic drinkers and sometimes also apiate and/or methadone users.

In the same way, people who farm skunk know that they’re not selling it to folk who want to relax, but rather – often – to kids who will stick it in a bong for the maximum THC-caused euphoriant effect possible. With the rising TCH levels in plants, there is less of other chemicals, for example cannibidiol, which Zuardi et al stated in a 2006 paper can have an antipsychotic effect.

Talking about papers, I think Prof Nutt threw away his academic merit when he pulled his “equasy” stunt. That was pure campaigning dressed up as science.

The “postman” remark was a simple observation of fact, Alan Johnson has no qualification to make any decision regarding drug harms whereas Prof Nutt clearly has.

As regards legalising so-called “skunk” being “unethical”, perhaps you could explain that logic? Do check your facts first though!

Of course the reason we have a properly regulated alcohol industry is because it’s legal and not subject to prohibition.