Having scored a hit with the reclassification of cannabis to class B, the prohibition lobby has the scent of victory in it’s nostrils. There is a new anti-cannabis campaign brewing, based on the “skunk panic”.
The claim being made by these people is quite simple: Cannabis has changed from the harmless, weak giggle weed that they all used to smoke back in the 60’s into a genetically modified highly addictive drug which is destroying teenagers minds.
This of course was the focus of Julie Meyerson’s book which this blog has already spent two entries commenting on, so we won’t go there again – but if you’re interested check out the previous two entries.
Last Sunday, when this blog normally gets put together, didn’t go as planned. Saturday evening I get a phone call from the BBC asking me to appear on the debating show “The Big Questions”, so Sunday morning was spent in suit and tie in a makeshift studio in a school in Enfield.
The thrust of the programme was to ask that as cannabis has changed and become more dangerous, should we now subject it to stronger prohibition? Of course, this makes several assumptions chief amongst which is that prohibition is the best way to deal with drugs which are dangerous. So from the start those of us arguing against the motion were at something of a disadvantage.
Putting the case against skunk was an author – Julie Lynn Evans – who also works as a child psychotherepist who started by saying we don’t understand how cannabis has changed but then went on to explain that the ratio of THC/CBD is the reason. She said the old style “dope” was a completely different substance to “skunk” and that she would like to have that legalised.
The Telegraph reviewed the Myerson’s book on 8th March and described how they came to believe the problem was cannabis:
There was, however, one chink of light. A friend from Manhattan suggested they contact a London expert who had a fantastic track record of getting youngsters off skunk.
That expert was Julie Lynn Evans, one of the UK’s foremost psychotherapists and author of “What About the Children?”
Julie Lynn Evans isn’t new to all this, some two years ago she famously wrote in the Daily Mail
“Skunk is one of the most serious things on our streets today. I would rather my daughter took heroin.”
This article doesn’t seem to be available on the Daily Mail site anymore, but is archived on UKCIA here
Julie Lynn Evans claims to see victims of the skunk problem in her treatment room all the time. She spoke as if she were a doctor, although quite what medical qualifications she has is hard to discover, she keeps them well hidden from Google which is quite an achievement.
Also on the BBC debate was Marjory Wallace, the director or SANE. Ms Wallace was highly instrumental in getting the recent regrading of cannabis to class B. In support of her position a few years ago then she came out with some outlandish claims, which I note she has now modified. She now claims 1 in 10 are at risk of developing severe mental illness as a result of smoking “skunk”, accepting that most people will not suffer any ill effects. Again, her argument is that skunk is dangerous to children and young teenagers, therefore it should now be put into class A.
Also onthe programme was Gloria Harding, a mother of a young man who (she claimed) had developed schizophrenia as a result of his cannabis use. Gloria is the fund raising officer for Talking About Cannabis – the prohibition campaign run by Debra Bell.
Something of a pattern is beginning to emerge here; the same group of well connected people.
To be fair to the BBC they did invite some people who could argue against all this onto the show, which included Dr Trevor Turner from Hackney who provided some very well informed arguments against the case being made and Chris Davis, Libdem MEP for North West who really knows his stuff. And I was there, in me suite.
However, the claim beingmade was that children were getting harmed through cannabis use which was due to the arrival of “skunk”. These anti-cannabis people seem to be claiming it would be fine for kids to be using the “old type” of “pre-GM non addictive” cannabis they used to smoke.
“My first joint”
This mock-up of the famous Ladybird books has been circulating around the web for years and as far as we can tell, the original author is (perhaps wisely) keeping his or her head down, but it makes the point very well.
These people are actually building this panic on the back of a very real problem – children are getting involved in the illegal cannabis trade. Indeed, a lot of children are getting involved.
This skunk panic is being hyped up in the hope of causing public concern over this danger to our children, not to draw attention to what’s really happening, but to give the impression that we need more and stronger prohibition.
In truth however, what we’re seeing is the result of prohibition, the result of a massive and very profitable industry operating without restriction, utterly uncontrolled. There is a saying in law reform circles: The minimum age for buying cannabis in the UK is £10 and so it is.
We can expect to hear a lot more about the skunk panic over the next few weeks as this clique of influential people use their connections to get their poison into the media. The danger is of course that politicians will smell votes in looking tough on drugs and will do something to play to the crowd.
The idea of making “skunk” class A is a non-starter. Of course, under prohibition there’s no way to know what you’re buying and there’s no way to tell simply by looking. In reality “Skunk” is a specific type of cannabis – a specific strain, but these people seem to be using the term generically to mean sensi weed grown under lights. But sensi cannabis grown under lights can be grown organically from seeds which produce a good ratio of THC to CBD, would they count that as “skunk” as well?
In any case, growing cannabis for sale already carries a 14 year prison term. If that isn’t a deterrent it’s hard to see what would be.
If there is a real concern about high THC cannabis, the answer is simple: Control the seed banks and ensure that the British cannabis crop is of the “right” type. The only way to prevent “skunk” – if it does need preventing – is by regulation and control of the commercial cannabis industry, which means legalisation, it can’t be done under prohibition.
The only way to protect children from the trade is also by legalising and controlling the trade, introducing age restrictions, licencing the dealers and so on.
In truth, this “skunk panic” is the law reform movements big opportunity and UKCIA for one will be making as much out of it as we can.
You can see “The Big Questions” cannabis debate – “Should we treat cannabis like heroin” – on BBC i-player for the next few weeks here. It’s in the last third of the show, 40 minutes in and runs for 20 mins.
Oh, and there is no such thing as “genetically modified” cannabis, that’s made that up as well.
This site does its best to educate and inform about the truths of consuming cannabis. It is just a pity that a more widespread message can’t be put out into the mainstream UK media in general, and if it is, not to have it automatically shot down as “hippy wasters, probably high on skunk talking shite”.
With what seems like a state every few months in America(home of paranoid prohibition)creating what seems to be workable legislation for medicinal cannabis anyway, with N.O.R.M.L type organisations leading the way, why can there not be a British version that has doctors, scientists and the like leading the way,refuting the “truths” put forward by deb bell/Julie Meyerson/Julie Lynn Evans and all the other “experts” that pop up too.
Advertizing campaigns along the lines of the recent athiest adverts “probably no god, so stop worrying” etc..
“don’t belive the skunk hype, so stop worrying” would look good on the back of a bus.
Getting some rich, known by the general public UK pro cannabis supporters to inject a bit of cash wouldn’t go amiss either. George michael, Goldie looking Chain, Howard Marks errrr?? well thats three for you..
Good job though Derek. Keep trying your best..
Well done Derek for your contribution on the programme and the other 2 contributers on “our Side”. It contunually amazes me how ignorant the normal person in the street is about drugs. They are so full of misconceptions and ignorance.
You only had to look at Kelvin Mackenzie who was suddenly stopped in his tracks when he thought he was describing a totally unreal world of cannabis being on sale in differant strengths…someone said just like alcohol ( I don’t think it had occured to him before that alcohol is a drug )then the MEP said this is already happening in Holland he was totally deflated and could only fall back on that he didn’t want to be like the dutch thank you very much.
We need to get out there and conteract this misinformation with the truth
Hey Derek where on earth do they get this 10 to 20% figure of kids who are affected by cannabis. according to the ACMD its 1 in 5000 thats .002%.
Is there any research for this 10 to 20%??
The high figure I’ve heard was 1 in 4. This was a claim based on the theory that a gene – the COMT gene – had a certain combination which put people at risk of severe mental illness. 1 in 4 people have this combination (val-val or met-met, can’t remember which off hand).
It was a theory.
I think it’s a case of pick a figure and say it often enough and it becomes true.
There are many problems with moving cannabis to class A. Most revolve around convincing the public that cannabis is now as serious as heroin use and that it has somehow changed (maybe even been genetically modified).
There will be a certain burden of proof required (more than say to go back to category B from C) since this is a quantum change if it goes ahead. It will need some drastic signs of extra harm, some people’s personal experience must reflect an epidemic and this does not seem to be how the majority feel about the issue.
Also ‘science’ must do a better job of identifying the ‘killer skunk’ strain (which is going to be like chasing a ghost – since it really does not exist in the way the media portray). If potency is used as a guide then will the police realise that they must know when the ‘factory’ they raid is at peak harvest time so that when they test the confiscated cannabis it has a high THC reading. A few weeks too early and it will look like they have not got the elusive ‘skunk’ – and that will not be good enough for the courts or the outraged public. (cannabis acquires most of it’s potency in the days just before harvesting the crop).
If the penalties are to stay harsh for Class A substances then it will need a big increase in the prison population (you cannot let some one off for cannabis but not heroin if they are in the same category) which will cost money. The conviction rates for things such as simple personal possession (often dealt with by a caution if at all) need to be increased so that the public can see something is being done about this major concern.
Enforced prohibition of many recreational drugs is a difficult horse to ride – Over do the exaggeration of your argument and you put pressure on yourself to succeed in prohibition (which is too expensive if it is even practically possible), ignore it and the problem goes away (at least in the public’s priorities). This measure if taken too seriously maybe the undoing of the present drug categorisation system in Britain.
spes ver eternus
Derek that COMT gene link to cannabis and schizophrenia is unfounded go here
http://www.encod.org/info/CLAIMS-LINKING-CANNABIS-AND.html
the research was conducted by Dr Zemmet I think who is part of the Cardiff University that originally originally came out with the theory of a link it has now shown to be nonsense.
They really need to be challenged on these figures I have not seen any research anywhere that proposes a 10-20% chance of schizophrenia among any age group.
The show on Sunday allowed me no time to say what I believe…….which is this: I see a lot of children (12, 13 yrs olds) whose developing brains are affected by smoking dope. I am not a doctor but a psychotherapist who works with children and my experience is that the stronger the stuff with the less CBD the more dangerous it is and has a bad effect on young kids especially with learning disabilities. All I have been trying to do is alert the public to this point. I completely agree that the drug needs to be regulated, controlled and sorted out and I like the stuff that is coming out of California and the experience of the Dutch. In the meantime I keep working to try and keep children away from all drugs but especially the strong stuff which does seem to hurt their tender brains. I am absolutely for discussion and a new way of thinking and felt that the ‘debate’ on Sunday was chaotic and didn’t help anyone.I am very happy to be sent information about your work and include it when I am asked about the problem.
Julie,
Thank you Julie for your post it is good to see your point of view.
I don’t think you will find any adult cannabis user happy with the fact that young children/teenagers are using cannabis. Many us also have kids and know like you that any drug ( I even restrict my daughters access to caffeine based drinks) should not be used by children.
THe really big problem we have with prohbition is as Derek points out “The minimum age for buying cannabis in the UK is £10”
What is of upmost importance is that both sides stick to the facts as we know them. Claims such as 10 to 20 times stronger or 10 to 20% risk of developing schizophrenia although may scare the uninformed adults the kids who are using this stuff know that is nonsense . I think we severely underestimate the intellignce of kids nowadays. If we as adults are to have any credibility we need to be truthful.
Equally those cannabis users on the regulate and control side cannot make claims that cannabis is totally harmless again this is not true.
We really owe it to the kids to state the dangers clearly and in perspective and not scaremonger.
I should also mention what I think is a very important aspect of the cannabis used in the UK at the moment
THe production of cannabis is a delicate and intricate process just like producing a good wine. It needs to reach maturity, if artificial fertilizers are used then it needs to be flushed for 2 weeks or more to remove them, It needs to be properly cured so that the chlorophyll oxidises and the CBD’s get a chance to develop. Street skunk is packed full of artificial fertilizers, it is usually harvested early not flushed or cured at all. This is a dangerous cocktail for anyone to smoke and I believe causes many of the problems associated with mental health and our kids. THis along with the heavily adulterated soap bar which has hardly any cannabis in it at all is what our kids are using. THis situation can be firmly laid at the door of Prohbition. If cannabis had been regulated and controlled say 20 years ago we wouldn’t have higher strength cannabis available to kids and we wouldn’t have poor quality badly cultivated and adulterated cannabis either. One is reminded of the deadly alcohol that was prevalent during alcohol prohbition in the USA.
Hi Julie
Thanks for your comments.
First, I think it’s important to understand that strong cannabis – and I mean really strong cannabis in terms of THC content – is actually not new. Anyone who’s ever tried “Thai sticks” from the 1970’s and many other types is fully aware of this. Although such strains were perhaps not mainstream back then, they were by no means uncommon.
Some forms of cannabis on sale may well be high in THC/low in CBD and CBD levels may well be important in the mental health debate. But on the street there’s a spread of everything from the very strong through to the mild and because of prohibition there is no way to tell in advance what you’re getting. But to be honest, kids are more likely to be getting their hands on weed cut with anything from sugar if they’re lucky to glass beads if they’re not, rather than the top-notch stuff.
Another important fact to bear in mind is that measurements of cannabis “potency” have never been made with any real consistency, so it’s hard if not impossible to make any really valid comparisons over the past 40 – 50 years. In particular CBD levels have never been routinely measured.
I think the important point you’re making is – as you put it “I see a lot of children (12, 13 yrs olds) whose developing brains are affected by smoking dope”. The “skunk” issue is a red herring compared to the fact that children of that age are getting hold of cannabis. I made the point to you in the programme that no children should be using cannabis of any type, I don’t agree that the “milder” forms would be particularly less harmful to the growing mind of a child. Basically, children should not be taking any drugs at all – and I would include caffeine in that. Stoned children are, in truth, a scandal and a sign of the utter failure of the present drugs policy.
That children are getting hold of cannabis in the numbers they are is the result of prohibition, of cannabis being a massively popular yet illegal and uncontrolled drug. Moving cannabis – or just some kinds of cannabis – around in the classification system is not going to change anything; the system of prohibition is broke, simple as.
Alcohol prohibition in the USA was ended under the slogan “protect the children” because the same thing happened then as is happening now with cannabis. Cannabis prohibition should end under the same slogan.
I’ve just watched that episode of the big question and can I just say I’m truly in amazement at how badly the whole debate was handled. Unfortunately the cannabis issue is one that deserves a hell of a lot more intelligent discussion than this anarchic 20 mins I’ve just witnessed. I was most shocked about the way in which problems which have so obviously been caused by prohibition (ie. strain strengths, the gateway theory) were being so flagrantly banded about as ‘good’ arguments for continuing with it! Finally the shows biggest let down was the way in which they appeared to give more time to the non educated members of the group, like that guy from the Sun and Gloria Hunniford (who apparently believes drugs to be like snakes in that they can’t be found in Ireland?!?).
It’s great to see that Julie has came here and finally been able to show her learned and experienced opinion.
Before I started talking to you I had just done a big piece in You magazine which I have modified considerably after reading the above. But I do not have enough information and am not clear on what the next best steps should be.I have a very different view from the Sun in that I believe an admission of not knowing and accepting that we need to know more is a strength and not a weakness. I suspect that Marjorie Wallace has moved to that view too. By mistake I have found myself as a sort of spokesperson for troubled childen who are hurting their heads with drugs (and also binge drinking and almost everything else that they can find to blot out). I realise that I need to be more informed and to listen carefully to the information that you guys have been collecting for years. Oddly enough if the ‘debate’ had not been stolen from us we would have been on the same side….ie children should not take drugs; more research is needed and the government’s present policy is not working. Perhaps one day we could meet so that I can get my facts right for the days I am called to give a view? And it would be good to discuss cases such as Jake Myerson for example………he really did lose the plot and became impossible. BUT….whatever he found to smoke did make him very odd indeed. A meeting sometime?
Hi Julie
Yes, it would be good to meet. I will reply in private to the e-mail you gave when you posted your comment.
Derek
Julie,
Thanks for your input I also too think that we are on the same side Kids shouldn’t be doing drugs (incuding the legal ones )
I think you also highlight something that is often just glossed over in any discussion on drugs. WHy do our kids ( and indeed many adults) feel the need to blot things out. WHy do so many binge drink why do so many binge smoke cannabis etc Sure Humans have always intoxicated themselves to some extent it seems to be part of human nature. But abuse is a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. I think this means we need to ask ourselves some serious questions about society. Unfortunately Politcians are unable to ask such questions because the answers would mean such a paradigm shift in our society. Really until we address the underlying cause of abuse ( as against use) we are only fiddling around at the edges.
There was a Rowntree report that looked at cannabis use among teenagers it found that those teenagers who had a good education and employment prospects could modify or stop their cannabis use and such use had little impact on their life. In contrast teenagers who had a poor education little prospect of meaningfull employment etc were the ones who sat at home using cannabis to an extent it affected negatively their life. It seems that cannabis is not the problem but can exacerbate the underlyihg problem.
If we really want to tackle abuse of any drug we need to look a lot deeper than criminalising those who use them. THis is a much more expensive and difficult problem than the vote catching “tough on drugs” rhetoric.
You guys were set up.
I hate the way the Sun journalist was treated like a bastion for morality, the British Empire was shit but there are still people around trying to keep the old British ways alive.
Britain to me is about acceptance, understanding and knowledge and this is what we need to forge if we want to lose the Sun and Daily Mail types. Government legislation that is founded on votes and not empirical evidence is ridiculous.
Well done for your contributions guys, if theres anything I can do to help email me.
Message from Amsterdam.
True, I watched the program The Big Question in amazement, and right now I am even more baffled while (re)watching the recorded version.
Besides coherent and rational arguments that were presented there were also …………
*****
The above was the opening of my contribution to a Message Board about that program The Big Question. My contribution has been banned by the BBC because they were afraid of a court case for “libel”. As was pointed out to me, in the UK there can be a case of libel even if an allegation is 100 percent TRUE. The BBC moderator provided me with the very relevant quote: “the greater the truth, the greater the libel.”
(Do not be angry with the moderator that banned my contribution: as he/she pointed out to me, it was not a matter of judgement on his or her part, but the following of an explicit order that left no room for evaluation of the merits of the case on his/her part. “I was just following orders” – we have heard it before in history. Of course I have lodged a complaint with the BBC.)
Let it sink in in what kind of society that you live ……… and on the basis of what kind of considerations the BBC applies self-censorship. On the whole, that is in most other countries, (and with explicit reference to this statement in the USA in 1735) a statement that is (or can be documented to be) true will not be a ground for libel.
******************
My argument was that four participants behaved dubious, if not immoral, in the debate on such an important matter. I made my arguments based on frame-by-frame looking again at the program to try to pin point the tricks of demagoguery that were used by these four. (Note: outside of the UK one cannot watch your rerun links but I have the program recorded on hard disk.)
These four people were: former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie (an extremist by any standard); Gloria Hunniford (notice especially the contorted facial expressions when in her unadulterated fanaticism she angrily dismissed her fondness for alcohol as irrelevant, and lashed out at the mild mannered psychiatrist Dr Trevor Turner when he pointed out that she made a tenfold exaggeration of the THC level of “Skunk”); then there was the political lobbyist, Marjorie Wallace, who was nearly beatified by presenter Nicky Campbell when he introduced her. Unfortunately, Wallace had the problem of not being able to manage to express completely even a few simple sentences but instead verbalized her absolute convictions with fragmented sentences that contained only emotive evocations and innuendo’s. She just managed to bite on her tongue when she realized that she almost fell into a trap of her own making, namely that she has been barking up the same tree (cannabis causes psychiatric problems) long before “Skunk” even existed, let alone became the current hot issue.
As said, I used frame-by-frame analyses to make sure that I was indeed watching a gang-rape being committed by these four people on the other participants. One would like to dismiss such immoral individuals as irrelevant, but they are very dangerous. In a rational society, and in rational discourses, there would not be a problem. In fact, one would hope to strike a common interest because there are indeed issues associated with recreational drugs which should be of concern for responsible people.
However, people like those four are quite the opposite of “responsible”. Just to be sure, I am not someone who is quick to call ideas “immoral” and I do not do that about their ideas. (I have more problems with calling them “ideas”, on the whole they are more sentiments that tap into murky depths.) Nevertheless, now and in the past they are the rulers who control the status quo and are trying to change the agenda into even more ruthless directions, even though already at the moment their “ideas” have very dangerous consequences. (To name a few: stimulate organized crime, subject people to untested substances, substitute consumption such as e.g. alcohol, bring children into contact with people in semi-or-wholly criminal circles, etc.) Thus, their “ideas” are not immoral as such, but the methods that they use are immoral and unethical. (Such as: using scare-tactics; disinformation; propaganda; etc – or like in The Big Question – committing a gang-rape under the guise of religious infotainment.)
As said, although fair and coherent reasoning is not really the style of above mentioned type of people, nevertheless, I would like to present them with a small question and a few facts.
First the small question: If beer has 6 % alcohol, wine 15 %, and whiskey 36 %, does that mean that the latter is six times as dangerous as beer and wine 2 ½ times as dangerous as beer? Does that mean that the beer binge drinkers that are fighting, puking or passing out in the British streets (or in my streets in Amsterdam) just do not exist. In other words, that they exist only in my hallucinations (having just been in my quiet and civilized cannabis-coffeeshop) because, after all, beer is weak in alcohol and thus innocent.
Of course, only intellectually challenged people like Hunniford, drink strong liquor in the same quantities as beer because they do not understand that a moderate and smart person adjusts the quantity of intake with the “quality c.q. strength” of the product. Is it perhaps not more likely that these people use terms like “strength” and “dangerous” in maliciously distorted ways to further their own interests ?
Just for the record a few facts:
Yes, the cannabis grown in the last ten years in e.g. The Netherlands, Canada (British Columbia and Quebec), the U.K., etc. does contain higher levels of THC than the indigenous cannabis of the Sixties. (2007 : 16 % THC – average of strong variants. For convenience I follow the term used in the discussion and thus call this indigenous variant “Skunk”.)
However, in the Sixties the people in Europe rarely smoked locally grown cannabis but tended to smoke imported hash with a similar level of THC as the present day “Skunk” (around 15 % THC), and indeed many people still do smoke such hash. The imported cannabis in the Sixties (as dried plant – i.e. like Skunk) that was less available in Europe (as compared with e.g. North-America) did and does contain less THC (around 6 %). However, quite soon (the Seventies) there were also imported weeds available (sinsimilla types) with higher levels of THC.
To sum up: THC strength in itself is not really a useful or convincing argument (except for malicious demagogues a la Hunniford, Wallace, MacKenzie, cum suis). That indigenous grown cannabis has pushed most other varieties from the market is for more than one reason a pity because the “Skunk” tends to have higher levels of THC but low levels of CBD. The latter has different (many will argue ” positive”) pharmacological effects than THC as well as different “pleasure” effects.
Above all, the methods used in public policy to deal with cannabis usage has actively stimulated the growth of quite hardened and concentrated criminal circuits. This has been the development in the UK but also in The Netherlands because there the sale to the public is regulated (with the unsatisfactory “condoning” policy), but not the supply to the regulated shops.
The advocates of a more tolerant attitude towards cannabis should be aware that The Netherlands do not provide a model that can or should be followed in the way that it is now. Remember, the most ruthless gangsters and criminals that one can imagine are locked arm in arm with the “thugs in suits” like the people mentioned here. As they have so amply demonstrated in the past, and built their careers upon, they prey upon human misery.
[Of course, in contrast to the demagogues on The Big Question, I can supply official documents and research to support my figures.]
Julie Lynn Evans – just a small question please !
You are everywhere described as a “psychotherapist”. In the Netherlands that is not a “protected” (i.e. licensed) occupation. In other words, anybody can call himself or herself a “psychotherapist”. (To call attention to this curious fact, an internationally very renowned professor at the University of Amsterdam called himself a psychotherapist — precisely because he had no qualifications in that field, but only degrees in political science.)
What is the situation in the U.K? What are your degrees ?
As a fair exchange: My education was at the Indiana University (BA), University of Amsterdam (MA-equiv), PhD education Carleton University in Ottawa, post-doc research University of Leiden.
I would not have asked if I had not come across the below remarkable statements:
JULIE LYNN EVANS: With the skunk, which is 30 to 60 times higher in THC content than the ordinary block or the stuff that was around in the ’60s, people are really hurting their brains, particularly the young people, whose brains aren’t properly formed yet.
LIZ HAYES: Julie Lynn Evans is a London-based psychotherapist who is at the front line of what she calls a losing battle. More and more young patients are being sent to her with cannabis-related psychosis. And this is what they’ve been smoking. It’s called skunk, the most potent form of cannabis. Loaded with THC, the component of the drug that gets you high, it’s regarded by a growing number of experts as the most dangerous drug on the streets today.
JULIE LYNN EVANS: I would prefer to have an 18-year-old hooked on heroin to treat, or crack cocaine, than skunk.
Source: http://www.daca.org.au/cannabis/REFER%20MADNESS%2060%20MINUTES%201
REFER MADNESS 60 MINUTES 11 SEPTEMBER 2005
“JULIE LYNN EVANS: I would prefer to have an 18-year-old hooked on heroin to treat, or crack cocaine, than skunk”
That is a ridiculous statement and has no credibility. Typical scaremongering based on false assumptions, prejudice and ignorance. Was it in the Daily Mail??? .
It just underlines my earlier point about being truthful and if we are not then it devalues anything that may say later that is true.
Many great posts but we are still not discussing cannabis as it actually is for most users under the present system of regulation (or lack of it). We don’t remind ourselves enough that largely we are not talking about top quality product but poorly produced stuff with little or no quality control. Often the product sold in the UK is adulterated with chemicals (sometimes greedy growers use fertilizers and pesticides etc not suitable to this plant), maybe it has some mold or fungal spores (most weed is not properly dried or stored) and it is then liberally mixed with tobacco (yuk !). The pressures of illegal production and an uneducated clientele means that very low grade product still sells at a good price and quantity is a premium over quality. So even though modern strains and production techniques can produce high levels of THC this potential is often not realised.
To listen to the prohibitionists you would think every school child is smoking the cannabis equivalent of Dom Perignon champagne when homemade cider might be a better analogy. The young and poor also tend to get the lowest of the low quality as well.
Stronger cannabis well produced means that less is smoked to get the desired effect (if it is consumed without tobacco of course !). So long as people know the relative strengths of what they are buying they tend to self regulate their intake so further reducing the harms caused by excessive smoking. Also we cannot do any meaningful assessment of the addictive nature of cannabis (‘skunk’ or otherwise) if it is routinely mixed with copious quantities of tobacco – a very addictive product which is damaging to health (especially if consumed without a filter as most cannabis users do).
All this does not change the conclusion – it makes the case stronger
LEGALISE and REGULATE
phrtao said,in March 26th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I agree completely with you.
But I took up already so much space and time of everybody 🙂
Regarding your very important point, namely(dangerous) adulterations:
A very reputable institute – advisory agency for government – in the Netherlands “monitors” the supply sold in our coffeeshops. That is why we have very reliable data on strengths THC,CBD,etc., how (methods) and how much people consume; which types they prefer (from dozens clearly labeled bags)…. and also adulterations. None ! Another side-effect of our “at the front door – for the consumer – regulated cannabis policy.
It is called the Trimbos Institute and the extensive reports are also available in English on their website.
Come to think of it, when I was smoking weed in high school it was because alcohol was harder to get hold of.
And there is a common misconception with the term peer pressure when applied to children. I think peer pressure implies that everyone believes their kid is an angel who must have been forced into such a terrible thing as smoking.
I started going to youth clubs and metal gigs in my area when I was 13 and I saw the older kids smoking pot. It scared the shit out of me the first few times because it was a ‘drug’, but after I saw it wasn’t turning people into raving maniacs I didn’t mind it. Of course it wasn’t long after that I ate pot for the first time (I was still too fire and damnation about smoking because of my parents doing it). I didn’t start smoking pot until about 3 months later, and I only picked up tobacco smoking because of a mushroom trip a few years later.
But there’s a case study of young people and cannabis for you. I was also drinking alot more than I was smoking when I was younger, so throw that into the works.
its great to see real debate on the issues surrounding cannabis! great site! much needed info, dont talk to Frank! Discuss with Derek!
I fail to see how gloria huniford or The editor from The Sun has expertise on cannabis and its use…anyway…
I was told by a police office of the detrimental effects of “skunk”, that it should be class A…so I replied…
…the worst side-effect from smoking cannabis is the law and police attention, if unfortunate enough. The law is intimidating, it has ruined relationships with family, taken freedom and allowed the government sanctioned humiliation of strip searches, intimate searches, loss of sleep, signs of stress…the list is endless.
I could almost imagine the police adverts where a famous person says….
“…what.. take a persons freedoms, detain them, seize their possessions with the resulting court hearing and labelling through criminal records….for the choice of herbs they inhale ….I dont know…I don’t know if I could do that…..”
Prohibition has to end NOW!
“Skunk is one of the most serious things on our streets today. I would rather my daughter took heroin.”
the lengths that ppl will go to!
is anyone else a bit puzzled?
heroine is a hard drug. one that causes severe dependency. this woman (Julie Lynn Evans) is either really dumb or just really ill informed.
this is absolutely ridiculous!
I have been reading the comments left on this site and have to say I never knew there were people who could actually talk sense about the matter of cannabis use. I myself was one the teenagers you mention, who use cannabis, so i felt logical for me to add my views. there was a statement made in one of the comments saying educated cannabis users were less likely to suffer ill effects than non-educated people. i completely agree with this statement, and the statements made about the prohibition. the reason i belive this is, is because there is no govorning authority controling the growing of cannabis, there are alot more “bad” strains of the drug in circulation and it takes somebody with knowlegde logic to determine which these are, which is where sites like this can help by instructing the people (weather it be adults or teenagers) on how to know which weed to buy. Also the people who have greater job prospects can afford to look around more for better samples of the drug…
this may not be the main factor for the greater number of uneducated people suffering from ill effects from cannabis use, but it is a contributing factor.
Also, i belive that the british government would have a much greater control over the use of cannabis, if it were legalised, than places like amsterdam. As Amsterdam is “known” worldwide as a place to and binge smoke cannabis. whereas if the british government were to legalise the drug they would most likely keep our country from becoming a “pothead” holiday resort by having greater control of the image portraid… Or as a complete opposite alternative they should make it legal in one the isles, market it as a “pothead holiday resort” and put in place a intecrate form of control in the legalised area. this would allow the suiter isle to gain vast amounts of revanue from the use of the drug. which would be heavily taxed. I belive this idea would allow us to use the cannabis smokers to help britain out of the “credit crunch”
p.s. ive been sober for over 3 years now and found it very easy to stop
I agree with sr.
I cannot possibly comprehend how a mother would prefer to find out her child is using a drug that is guaranteed to kill her at some point as we all no sooner rather than later instead of a drug that has killed absolutely no one! This doesn’t make sense at all but it does illustrate how far prohibitionists will go to force there views into the minds of everyone around them.
I simply cannot get my head around how corrupt our government is that it keeps a relatively harmless drug illegal and forces people with serious illnesses who desperately need it to endure their suffering just for a bit of extra cash in their back pockets from the selfish pigs in suits who benefit from prohibition.
I went to visit my auntie a short time ago who is a post-op cancer patient, for the chemotherapy she was given a range of about 30 different pills 1st to ease the discomfort the next to handle the side effects of the first pill and the next to handle the side effects from the second and so on… NONE OF THESE PILLS DO A DAMN BIT OF GOOD!
Cannabis is a literal God send to people like my auntie.
I am a recreational smoker myself and as much as I’d like the weed to be freed I really think there is a much more pressing need to have cannabis available for medical use immediately, worry about legalization and regulation later
It is a nesessity for some people and I think this should be the first step taken on the path to legalization.
WHAT KIND OF A FUCKING IDIOT SAID THIS
“Skunk is one of the most serious things on our streets today. I would rather my daughter took heroin.”
ok then so heroin can kill you first time you take it yet apparently weed is worse
people who say this are sucking the government dicks they are mindless fucks who know nothing about the drug
its propaganda and lies made to keep the country from doing something the government MAKES NO MONEY FROM YOU LYING FUCKS FUCKING SCUM!!!!!!!
cannabis is the least harmful drug out there heroin fucking kills you fucking idiots
SMOKE WEED EVERY FUCKING DAY
that idiot from daily mail was paid off to do this, so are a lot of people, they post bullshit because they cant resist m,oney being waved in their faces.
dont buy into this bullshit any of you reading this, fight against the countries stupid laws.
if hemp wouldnt ruin the timber industry or the cotton industry it wouldnt be illegal
theres too much money in the timber industry for hemp paper to be widely available
and hem,p makes for stronger clothes than cotton, once u plant cotton in the ground u cant plant in it again where as with hemp plants you can which is why hardly any clothes are made with hemp fiber in it
ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY
ok lets see now your trying to get weed up to class A cause ur a bunch of over exited lil twats who dont want there lil kids taking skunk?? we cant get skunk that simple u nut case if ud rather they take herion go right ahead and give them it becuase then they will be addicted unlike weed u bunch of mindles utter twats , a guy just got fired from the goverment cause he stood up for weed and told the truth so shtu up u lil idiot
“What the hell”, I suggest you read this blog again, I think you’ve misunderstood it something rotten!
I think the comment about heroin just completely undermines the stuggle that heroin addicts have to go through day by day.
I hope that woman experiences the pain a heroin addiction within a family causes and how much she’s offended millions of people.
Do Anybody know what is Anandamide?
If you don´t how can you say pot is harmless? google it
And if you thing that heroin and thc are so different, read “EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA”.. here is the link: http://www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Reference/CannabisWithdrawal_SmithSeymor.pdf
unfortunately the reality is not like we want
Pothead – you do realise you quoted a page from “drug free Australia” there, don’t you? Do you know what “Drug free Australia” is?
Reality is not what you seem to want if you trust sites like that. Please don’t insult our intelligence again.