Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

“My Son Played Russian Roulette With Cannabis – And Lost” – More Sensationalist Misinformation From The Mail

with 135 comments

Does Peter Wright, editor of the Mail On Sunday, have any interest in the truth, or is he just trying to squeeze the last drop of sensation, hyperbole and panic from anything to do with cannabis?

Last week, Peter Hitchens penned a disgusting diatribe of untruths which has already been sent to the Press Complaints Commission.  This Sunday’s paper will be the subject of a second complaint.  It is truly appalling, crass and cheap nonsense.  See here for the full story.

This is my response.  Whether the Mail publishes it is up to them but I and the millions of other cannabis users in Britain have had enough.  From now on, no such instance of lies and propaganda will be allowed to pass without being called to account.

My Response To The Mail On Sunday

This is a tragic story but blaming it on cannabis is not justified, nor is it helpful.

Whatever Henry’s story, the data simply does not support the idea that cannabis can cause schizophrenia.  In fact, it more strongly suggests that people who have mental illness may use cannabis to self-medicate.  It is instructive to note that Henry’s crisis arose when he had deliberately stopped using cannabis. Indeed, there is existing and continuing scientific research into cannabinoids as an anti-psychotic therapy.

This is similar to the recent story about Jared Loughner who shot Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona.  He was said to be a cannabis user but, in fact, his friends said that he had stopped using it to self-medicate and since doing so had become more unstable and strange in his behaviour.

The article mentions “Sir William Paton, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University and one of the world’s greatest experts on cannabis” but I am personally acquainted with Professor Les Iversen, a current professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, the current chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and author of many books on the subject of cannabis. Prof Iversen was also the author of an article in The Times entitled “Cannabis. Why It’s Safe” and he delivered a lecture last month entitled “Bringing Cannabis Back Into The Medicine Cabinet”.

The demonisation of cannabis is a grave mistake and a disservice to young people and their parents.  It looks almost certain that cannabis will be legalised in at least one state in the USA either this year or next.  Progress will then roll out across the world.  It’s about time that the  British media caught up to fact that, as Professor Iversen says, cannabis is “one of the safer recreational drugs”, much safer than alcohol.  It also has tremendous actual and potential benefit as medicine and Britain is way, way behind in the world in recognising this.

The Mail On Sunday’s scare stories about cannabis should be replaced with facts and information about this valuable and relatively harmless substance.

Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol said in 2009 that even on the most extreme interpretation of the data on cannabis and psychosis (a review of all published evidence) that 96% of people could use cannabis with no risk whatsoever of developing psychosis.

Six million people in Britain use cannabis regularly.  We are sick and tired of the lies that are told about us.

135 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Peter,

    It would be interesting to find out how many cannabis users buy or read these tabloids. The best way to put them out of circulation is to stop buying them.

    Gart Valenc

    Gart Valenc

    January 23, 2011 at 12:20 am

  2. I am sadly reminded of Mr Bimble’s somewhat prescient comment on your earlier post about future government embarrassment;

    “Well let’s see what happens – I forsee an anti cannabis media frenzy occuring as some government propaganda is “leaked” to them by accident.

    I’ll be checking the Daily Fail website daily….”


    January 23, 2011 at 12:24 am

  3. […] Michael Roberts wrote an interesting post today Here’s a quick excerpt Whatever Henry’s story, the data simply does not support the idea that cannabis can cause schizophrenia. In fact, it more strongly suggests that people who have mental illness may use cannabis to self-medicate. It is instructive to note … […]

  4. Peter,

    Would it be possible to make a template press complaint letter regarding these two mail articles so ed can get as many people as possible with a good coherent message to the PCC?



    January 23, 2011 at 9:25 am

    • Correction to the above. Replace ed with we. So we can get…

      Damned android phone


      January 23, 2011 at 9:27 am

  5. The “favourable” quotes you keep making of Prof. Glyn yet again failt to mention his “other” statistic in a report earlier which showed Psychosis in Cannabis is 40% more likley.

    This young man’s story is all too familiar to me as I have seen this result before many times and while it does not follow that this will be the expereince of all users, it is unreslistic to try to maintain the false view that Cannabis is a totally harmless little drug.

    It is no good going on a rant when a story like this comes because for some people it is the fact, for someone who keep ionsisting on facts, you seem to only acknowledge them when they favour your cause.


    January 23, 2011 at 9:54 am

    • Cannabis is not totally harmless but when you compare it to alcohol, tobacco, horse riding or crossing the road, the risk is statistically tiny. Your 40% figure needs much tighter definition and a 40% increase of a tiny base means very little.

      The crucial fact is that with the massive increase in cannabis use starting in the 1950s/60s, if there was any validity in the psychosis argument you would expect a massive spike in the records of diagnosis. There is no such increase. The incidence of psychosis has remained stable at about 1% of the population since records began.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 23, 2011 at 10:12 am

  6. Peter Hitchens was on the Andrew Marr show this morning promoting his anti-cannabis lies.

    I called the BBC immediately and was fortunate enough to get through to the Deputy Director of News! He suggested that I may get the chance to respond!

    Dear Stephen,

    Thank you for taking my call this morning. As discussed, I am the Speaker of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance which is in the process of re–registering as a political party. We intend to field candidates at all future by-elections and campaign for fact and evidence based regulation of cannabis.

    I was dismayed to see Peter Hitchens, notorious for his extremist views and as an anti-cannabis campaigner, given free rein to promote the Mail On Sunday’s disgraceful cannabis scare story this morning. I was grateful for Claire Short’s intervention but for Hitchens to be able to deliver his propaganda, unchallenged on the facts, falls well short of the BBC providing balanced coverage.

    In particular, Hitchens said that the subject of the MOS story “almost certainly” developed schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis. In fact, even within the MOS story itself, it states that three-quarters of people can use cannabis without any risk of psychosis. Recent research from the University of Bristol suggests that the figure is 96% and that even in the vulnerable 4%, the risk is statistically tiny.

    I have already written a rebuttal of the MOS story which you can see here:

    I would be grateful for the opportunity to put the counter argument. According o the Home Office there are six million regular users of cannabis in Britain and | know I speak for every one of them in saying that we are sick and tired of seeing unchallenged anti-cannabis
    propaganda on BBC news. I very much hope that, as you hinted, you may be able to arrange the opportunity for the balance to be corrected.

    Kind regards,

    Peter Reynolds

    Peter Reynolds

    January 23, 2011 at 10:01 am

    • Cheers Peter and lads,

      I’ve been reading your blog posts for the past three days. 8 hours a day. I would like to comment some of your articles, cause I feel you’re a braveheart warrior. Perhaps a view from different perspective would help you see the picture of the plant.

      Let’s forget about the politics and numbers for a moment, please. You commented on article which is sales pitch for the book, actually. A personal story about the family from UK, told by father and son. Is it true? I believe it is, from the point of view of story tellers. After looking on their pictures I felt sad. Why? Because this story is the classic example how one shouldn’t enjoy the plant.

      The plant is not for the kids. It’s meant to be enjoyed by stable and strong men. Yes, the plant has some “medical” values. And yes, sometimes is funny, as we all know :).

      There is no strong evidence present that the plant triggered schizo here, but OTOH, there is also possibility that it did. It doesn’t matter, really, for Henry. What matters is that he can be cured in 12 months by changing his environment, food, lifestyle. Perhaps this should be of greater concern for his father. And his book publisher.

      Regarding your BBC appearance, go there humbly, and talk about the plant in positive way. Thumbs up!


      January 23, 2011 at 10:35 pm

      • Gentle and profound words John. Thank you. But you make me wonder – where are the lasses?

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 10:41 pm

  7. Thank you Peter, you certainly do speak for every cannabis user in the country and we are very grateful you do.

    To the above, it’s not just the many scientific reports that come to the conclusion cannabis is not dangerous, but also the fact 6 million people smoke cannabis in this country, we see with our own eyes it causes no harm to society whatsoever. We smoke pot to enjoy ourselves, rather than to destroy ourselves. I certainly wouldn’t touch it with a barge poll if it were anywhere near as dangerous as Peter Hitchens claims it is. No doubt smoking large amounts of cannabis in excess might not be conducive to a productive life, but the same can be applied to drinking excessive amounts of alcohol on a regular basis, but this is the exception for most users rather than the norm.

    Pot Seeds

    January 23, 2011 at 10:08 am

    • Professor Glyn himself has stated about the 40% so that is “your” scientific fact, I find it ridiculous you want to ignore the words of the same man you are so often quoting when it suits you.

      All the time their is this blind ignorance of how this does in fact happen to some people and how Cannabis can do this even with a smaller amount in some circumstances, I do not think you deserve to be taken seriously until you are prepared to discuss and accept these “facts” properly.

      You say you would not touch it if it was near as dangerous as Hitchings say’s, well to some people it is and you want to play that down as much as you can.

      One must accept that there is a bad side to it and Cannmabis is frequently the drug younger people start with that leads them down a worse path. These matters MUST be raised ot the fore, debated and solutions found before Cannabis should be given any green lights.


      January 23, 2011 at 10:23 am

      • People try cannabis before they try other substances.

        The reason is clear – you experiment with the more benign substances first.

        Most people try tobacco before they try anything harder, is tobacco therefore a gateway drug?

        I would put forward David that rather than Cannabis being the gateway, the dealer is. This is a direct result of prohibition.

        You go to your dealer for cannabis, he has none this week, but he does have some cocaine. Rather than leave empty handed, you buy some.

        There’s your gateway David.

        If you need further convincing read about Portugal’s decriminalisation of drugs and the effects observed since. They haven’t seen the massive surge in drug use proponents of prohibition might predict.


        January 24, 2011 at 7:20 pm

  8. My son becomes paranoid if he smokes cannabis and has been in the mental hospital four times. He first smoked a joint aged 13, Was smoking all day at 19 before first being sectioned. My other son is a regular cannabis smoker for 20 years – can get pretty bad-tempered.
    Genetic variations mean some people can smoke cannabis without harm, but for a small minority it is desperately damaging.
    I’m in favour of legalisation, but what you guys should be doing is recognising the harm to some and pushing for identification of the genetic variations that would warn the vulnerable kids to steer clear of cannabis.


    January 23, 2011 at 10:15 am

    • Agreed completely Lulu. I want fact and evidence based regulation of cannabis so that the production and supply is taken out of the hands of criminals. That way we can more effectively prevent the tiny proportion of vulnerable people falling victim to it and we can be sure that what is out there is safe.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 23, 2011 at 10:23 am

      • How do you poropose to do that Peter?, what safeguards could be introduced to avoid people using it who are genetically vulnerable to it and what Science do you have to support this is viable or possible. Who would bere the cost of implenmenting this?

        Who would also bere the cost of administering and Policing any safeguards etc brought in should it ever be legalised?


        January 23, 2011 at 10:28 am

      • David,

        On the “40%”, be precise about your point and I’ll happily answer you. 40% of what will what?

        As to a model for regulation look here:

        or here:

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 10:42 am

      • Peter this is from the very professor who you are constantly reffering too:

        The study, funded by the Department of Health and based in the University of Bristol, found that individuals who used cannabis were 41 per cent more likely to have any psychosis than those who had never used the drug.

        “Professor Glyn Lewis from the University of Bristol, and senior author on the paper, said: “It is difficult to be certain about whether cannabis use causes psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia. It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness .

        “However, all the studies have found an association and it seems appropriate to warn members of the public about the possible risk.”


        January 23, 2011 at 10:50 am

      • If you analyse that statement David you can see that it means very little. I bet 80% of those who use cannabis drank tea this morning. It doesn’t prove that using cannabis makes you drink tea, does it?

        David, I’m tired of going round and rouind the same circles with you. What’s the point? Can’t we move on? You know that what I’m advocating is not a free for all. On the contrary, fact and evidence based regulation will produce a safer, more controlled environment.

        You’ve been shown loads of evidence before so stop asking for it again! There is no real dispute between scientists and researchers about the facts. The problem is a political issue where the government refuses to base policy on evidence.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 11:58 am

      • David, I believe that 41% refers to questionnaire scores (asked about key indicators for psychosis risk, one of which is a question ‘do you break the law’, if you’d seen the way the study was performed, you’d realise it isn’t really the same as psychosis.

        Dude, I’ve had psychosis. It is not the same as cannabis. Psychosis is much stronger!


        January 23, 2011 at 11:44 pm

      • Big kiss Julian!

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 11:52 pm

      • David you always conveniently ignore the fact that its already out there and damage is already being done with nobody other than victims and their families picking up the pieces. You ignore this and the damage done by adulteration. You ignore the fact that people who might need help may not seek it for fear of retribution and drug user being recorded against their names. You ignore most of the sub factors surrounding the issue yet, you seem full of damnation for many of those who do not ignore these facts and work toward a less harmful system. Tell me David, who pays now?? The taxes as paid by the drug dealers??


        January 23, 2011 at 10:43 am

      • Again you blame everyone for not seeing it your way. I cannot ignore what is already out there because I was a user myself many years ago and saw all too well the damage it does, so please spare me. You say those who seek help don;t go to it out of “Fear” of drug user being put to their names? Funny they don;t seem to fear that when breaking the law and buying it from a drug dealer?

        I find many people do not get help because they don’t want it, usually because they are too happy being stoned and apathetic to it. The first step to getting help is wanting it.


        January 23, 2011 at 10:54 am

      • You know thats not true David. Unlike many here I’m very open in as much a I see the potential dangers of association. It nothing to do with a difference of opinion that erks me so. Its all about the blind faith that you seem to stick to that prohibition is working when all know that it is a vain and failing hope. To assume people don’t want help is just foolish and you know better. You’ve proved your intelligence time and again yet you consistently ignore the issue that this substance is readily available and more damage is done when it is not regulated in anyway other than the control as ordered by criminals. Criminals who adulterate, criminals who give credit. I would in fact be anti legalisation IF i thought for one minute that prohibition had any chance of working but history tells us for sure that this does not help rather it causes far more misery.


        January 23, 2011 at 11:11 am

      • Please, show me were I have said prohibition is working Nick?

        No, you like SO many always do , PRESUME!

        Your all too busy frothing and foaming to notice that.


        January 23, 2011 at 11:14 am

      • So whats the answer David? You’re ‘ not prepared ‘ to consider legalisation until all bla bla so you suggest we stick with failed prohibition until what more and more people are put at greater risk. There’s no frothing from me …


        January 23, 2011 at 11:21 am

      • I am not prepared for it to be a free for all either, those vulnerable both genetically and socially need to be fully catered for in any legislation first.

        It is the constant ignoring of this side of it by too many in the pro-lobby that harms chances you have of legislation.

        Of course it does not help that cowardly MP’s like Richard Drax will not come to the table and debate it with the likes of Peter either.


        January 23, 2011 at 11:24 am

      • I believe that there is not a one fix solution to those vulnerable. I think, as it is now, there is no hope of damage limitation. The only real answer is perhaps genetic profiling however, that would open a whole other can of worms as, and i believe it could happen anyway, that we become a genetically stereotyped society.
        What I believe David is that in a legal situation that people would be more inclined to seek help if needed and that the family of those adversely effected would be far more inclined to seek help fro gp’s and the likes. I don’t want legalisation for purely my own selfish reasons…as much as anything its for the benefits of the likes of my children. Whilst shrouded in darkness people fear asking for help.


        January 23, 2011 at 11:33 am

      • There are underlying Social problem as well as the genetic ones,massive problem that needs to be addressed alongside this issue and the fact that people (gov and pro’s) are not willing to fully explore it worries me.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm

      • that is too funny… he’s accusing others of doing what he is doing, frothing and foaming. lol


        January 28, 2011 at 3:52 am

    • Well said Lulu, this is what does annoy me about the Pro-lobby at times, they can be supremely selfish in failing to recognise the harm Cannabis can do to some. I for one am interested in the legislation side but would never entartain supporiting it until these matters are fully and exhaustivley discussed and solved, at least the best they can be.


      January 23, 2011 at 10:25 am

    • Lulu,

      I’m sorry for your sons. They molested the plant. And now they suffer. They are afraid. Help them. Food is medicine if it is based on plants. Try this: chop four bananas in a blender, add some fresh milk. Add crushed almonds and nuts. Add five tea spoons of cocoa powder. Blend into shake. Let them have it as much and as often when they want it.

      If they ask you where you got a recipe… tell them it’s from the guy that is enjoying the plant for 30 years.

      You’ll be giving them a shot actually. A load of pure live energy. A load of amino acids and minerals. Learn about serotonin. Take a look for arginin. Let them learn and decide. It’s their life, after all, and it’s their decision to stop. To let the plant go away from them. 90 days. They should be completely clean in 90 consecutive days. That’s all.

      There is no other way. You see, the plant is not to be enjoyed on daily basis. It should be enjoyed in circles. Circles are periods of time. On and off. On circle length is individual, just as long as they are of same length as off circles. Balance is the key word.

      Genetic variations are beta testers, Lulu. You see, money has one peculiar characteristic…it likes to spin. But our plant doesn’t need money to grow. It needs some of our care. The guys with the money know that. They want to sell a lot of plant. A lot. For medical purposes. Genetically modified plant. In which they will control THC levels. And maybe more. As soon as data collection phase is finished, production will start.

      Even you have all the rights to blame the plant, the plant is not to be blamed. It was misused, although plant did sent warnings. They were ignored. Knowledge will set you free. You can bring love in your family again, I’m sure.

      Take care.


      January 24, 2011 at 2:50 am

    • There will always be people that have negative reactions to almost anything – even sunlight and tap water – but that is no reason to punish those that benefit or those that suffer through cannabis use

      Certainly leaving the supply in the hands of often greedy and unscrupulous drug dealers cannabis possibly help – just as prohibition of alcohol in the US had it’s own negative effects piled on top of the bad effects – on some people- of alcohol itself.

      The law ought to be about Justice, and about protecting people – but in fact the law banning cannabis possession, cultivation and supply fails and actually punishes the very people it out to protect whilst allowing others to make massive untaxed profits – and all at public expense.

      By the way the figures claiming that cannabis users are more prone to mental health problems than non-users apply only to those that are prone to those problems in the first place

      And although the use of cannabis in the UK and many other countries has shot up since the 1970’s, the incidence of mental health problems has not changed much at all

      And remember that all the problems are happening under prohibition.

      Personally I reckon that for every user that seems to suffer through illegal cannabis use, there are 100 that seem to benefit.

      If somebody does have a bad effect, calla doctor, not the police!


      January 24, 2011 at 10:49 am

  9. Its a very sad story for sure however, the insistence that this poor individuals problems are as a direct result of exposure to cannabis are clearly misleading.
    Its all too easy to point the finger at an illegal drug when it is one of many potential factors. It could be that they are correct in their assumption equally they also could be way off the mark. If however, the Mail wish to publish stories such as these then, they also need to include scientific views far broader that the small scare tactic snippets as quoted within the article. Lets all complain. Personally, I don’t truly believe it will change anything thats done by the mail or still any damage already done by the article but, I’m happy to use my time this way. I’m sorry to all that I feel this way but I’d be lying to you all if I said differently.


    January 23, 2011 at 10:22 am

    • “Its a very sad story for sure however, the insistence that this poor individuals problems are as a direct result of exposure to cannabis are clearly misleading”

      Your evidence to prove this please?


      January 23, 2011 at 10:55 am

      • Your evidence that it is…

        There is non either way and thats the point.

        If anything David, whilst mental ill health figures remain somewhat constant drug consumption has increased so that in itself suggests.. well you decide.

        Again, and i’m tired of saying this, I am aware of the risks but until the problem is taken in house ie legal and open, the problem cannot be effectively dealt with.


        January 23, 2011 at 11:18 am

      • Constant contradictory statment is a lousy way to debate Nick and exposes weakness in your argument, the issue is YOURS to prove , not mine. You’re the one who want’s it legalised.

        Now the press and these people say it is so, YOU prove it was not.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm

      • Mental illness has not increased? Oh please do tell? That is a nonsense surley, please show me the scientific evidence of this. I see otherwise on that one for sure, if not I guess the Pshychiatric industry has some criminal explaining to do 🙂


        January 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm

      • David do a google for the Keel Study…,

        I quote
        “Their confidential paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses.

        The authors say this data is “not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards.”

        Not too sure who funded the keel study though, that may (lol) have some bearing.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:39 pm

      • My bad on typos that would be Keele study


        January 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm

      • Stop trolling David.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      • Stop being in denial Peter.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm

      • LOL David.., same could be said about you.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      • David

        January 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      • Hilarious.

        Can you smoke “festering parrot droppings”?

        Is there any research?

        Is that what you’ve been doing David?

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 2:25 pm

      • NO but you owe me a few quid for the argument sessions, loans is two doors down 🙂


        January 23, 2011 at 4:02 pm

  10. I am sorry to hear about your son lulu, for every parent who goes through this must be heartbreaking wether or not the sibling took cannabis or not.

    It is my view that cannabis could be seen as a valuable early detection tool in diagnosing schizophrenia which would give the health professionals more time to assist sufferers.

    I have worked with people with mental illness who have never touched cannabis, as Peter points out since records began incidences of psychosis have remained at the same level despite a massive increase in cannabis use! If it was as dangerous and as harmful as it is being portrayed then it would be reasonable to expect the numbers of people experiencing mental illness would have rocketed, but it has not which in itself should speak volumes.

    I believe as parents we are always willing to lay blame at any door rather than take responsibility or accept that these things simply happen, it is never our childs fault whenever they get into trouble it is always the child of another parents fault and vice versa.

    David your 40% claim has no grounding, you merely spout out uniformed prohibitionist propaganda. I for one wonder why it is you think you have the right to tell everyone else how to live, I have read many of your posts here and the derogatory terms you use towards users etc is akin to what Freud called the “The Authoritarian Personality Disorder” and I have no doubt that had you taken part in Stanley Milgrams “Learning experiment” you would have went all the way and administered what would have been a lethal dose.

    I dont have any time for you or people like you, unlike others who seem to tolerate you, for me you and your kind are very much the enemy, not just my enemy but the enemy of freedom itself.

    L Catt

    January 23, 2011 at 10:53 am

  11. “David your 40% claim has no grounding, you merely spout out uniformed prohibitionist propaganda”

    That was a direct quote from a study, one of who’s authors was proifessor Glyn , the same professor the pro-lobby are always quoting in their favour!!

    If you don’t like it..blame him!


    January 23, 2011 at 10:57 am

  12. I dont care who it is the 40% claim is complete and utter tosh, please link me the study and details of the controls and the hypothesis? not just some over inflated daily mail article, point me to the research that proves this…

    I will be more than willing to point you to the very many extensive experiments that prove so many positive things about cannabis but it would only fall on death ears.. so please post a credible link that directly links cannabis as a cause of psychosis.

    What has my gender got to do with anything?

    L Catt

    January 23, 2011 at 11:51 am


    “Not” the Daily Mail you will notice.

    So I guyess the very Professor who the Pro-lobby always quote and use is full of tosh by your account then?

    Gender: Nothing making a bet with someone on Two paragraphs of ranting flatulence and victimology..I won.


    January 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    • Sorry david, where you talking about me? flatulence etc?


      January 23, 2011 at 12:17 pm

      • No Nick 🙂


        January 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      • Thank goodness for that! didn’t think you were but you never know for sure.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    • “Professor Glyn Lewis from the University of Bristol, and senior author on the paper, said: “It is difficult to be certain about whether cannabis use causes psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia. It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness . However, all the studies have found an association and it seems appropriate to warn members of the public about the possible risk.”

      Dr Zammit added: “Policymakers want to provide the public with advice about this widely used drug. However, even if cannabis does cause an increase in risk of developing psychosis most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness. Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses.”

      At present, there is little good evidence suggesting that cannabis use increases the risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety.”

      Alright David? Now that’s enough. We’ve been through this often enough. The results of this study are clear: there is “little good evidence” to show that cannabis causes psychosis.

      When debate turns into repetitive bickering and trolling it becomes pointless and I will not have this site hijacked for such negative purposes.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      • I see so you also wish to play it down by taking something out of the same study and putting it alone in a sentence, now read out the paragraph further down Peter….

        Playing it down like that and suggesting “trolling” simply because someone keeps picking you up on a bit of scientific evidence you wish to ignore, shows a flaw in your campaigns evidence.

        Anyway I am Beta testing software now so must get back to it, I feel this has just opened up a truth in the argument here, not one the pro-lobby wants aired and one that has reduced my respect for you Peter.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:26 pm

      • David you haven’t achieved anything except to take us round in the same circles as you did earlier in the week.

        The rest of the article reads:

        “Further research could help to decide whether there is a link.

        The authors estimate that if cannabis had a causal relationship with psychosis, about 14 per cent of psychotic illnesses in young adults in the UK could be prevented if cannabis were not consumed.”

        So how does that add to either point of view? I wasn’t leaving anything relevant out.

        No David. You are trolling. You are not “picking you up on a bit of scientific evidence you wish to ignore”. You are just bickering in a childish and petty way. Everything is open and above board here.

        I will not permit youi to hijack any further discussions. You are welcome to comment but not to bicker, troll or endlessly repeat yourself.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 12:39 pm

      • ” The study, funded by the Department of Health and based in the University of Bristol, found that individuals who used cannabis were 41 per cent more likely to have any psychosis than those who had never used the drug.”

        A scientific study made by the Professor Glyn, thje same man you constantly quote to others (when it suits you) and which when raised you wish to ignore, play down or deny.

        That is not trolling sunshine, that is giving you a bit of “Paxman”

        Trying to bury it under quotes form other paragraphs is rather weak Peter. is there in black and white, accept it.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:59 pm

      • “41 per cent MORE LIKELY to ”

        hrmm again, so otherwise, no clue at all, no definitive answer.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:01 pm

      • Science is never exact Jimbob, that is why you can no more rely on it than anyone else. Hence other factors that must be taken into account when debating legislation.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      • Other factors?
        As i posted way down the page, what are we to take into account then? Anecdotal evidence smeared with a healthy dose of personal morality?


        January 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm

      • There are many things Jim, Mental, social, costs etc.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:08 pm

      • Ok, humour me please, state your case on the mental and social costs with evidence other than your own anecdotal experiences? Im not been obtuse id really like to know what your case is.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:32 pm

      • David you are repeating yourself again. I don’t intend to. This is your last chance.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm

      • Peter you repeat yourself in every post you make on this blog regarding the issue, I will simply repeat that which you do not wish to face as you are clearly trying to avoid it..

        It is called debate and I can see your need to block me.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:25 pm

      • I have responded to all the issues you have raised again and again. I am not avoiding anything. However, if you keep up your endless, inane, repetition, jumping from one issue to another and back again, I will bar you.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm

      • I am simply answering points put while not allowing anyone to ignore facts that do not please them. If you cannot accept that then bar me.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    • Read the very first line of your link david… and then look up the would “could” no where does it say it “Does” theoretically I could be in mortal danger from eating a banana sandwich, but “DOES not prove the banana is to blame.

      Try something a bit more credible, there have been many experiments funded by prohibitionist and governments that desperately try to prove a link between mental illness and cannabis use, however they all fail.

      Thanks for the link though, just wish you would learn to read it properly. 😉

      as to your last reply… you have no idea what the hell you are on about, typical Authoritarian Personality Disorder candidate if ever I read one, you could off course be just a troll or a WUM (wind up merchant) I dont care.

      L Catt

      January 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

  14. Meh, these studies you guys are discussing get me, they are absolutely loaded and packed full of with words like “may, could, more likely, should, possibly” etc etc etc. At the end of the day they seem to have no clue on what’s REALLY happening.

    As for the daily fail story …, i hope this isnt a rebirth of another Debra Bell.


    January 23, 2011 at 12:03 pm

  15. Jimbob, everything the pro-lobby comes out with is maybe, could etc. This was a study from qualified scientists and professors, ones that the pro-lobby enthusiastically use themselves.

    Funny how these statistics are “SCIENTIFIC FACT” until the very same scientists come out with something that does not please the tokers, then “it’s nonsense”.


    January 23, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    • As it goes Dave i was also talking about the studies “Anti-lobby”…, they are equally if not more guilty than the “Pro-lobby”

      Both sides seem to be in an utter quandry of confusion. I once read an article stating that there had been over 10,000 studies on cannabis since 1950 and theres STILL no definitive guidance.

      How ridiculous is that?


      January 23, 2011 at 12:14 pm

  16. That is because both sides bullshit abotu the truth of Drugs. They are harnful, they do destroy lives…in the same breath they do not do it to everyone etc etc…

    The lack of open debate between Government, science and public is the number one problem here.


    January 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    • SO why so much tension about it?. It seems that both camps are equally at loggerheads with the truth been lost somewhere in between, really, how can we go on like this?.

      Both sides have to admit defeat in some areas, equally both side have winning arguments. As they cant seem to agree on most things, it seems that morality bashing is the only thing left.., which at the very least is wrong and at the other end of the scale doing very real damage to those who are vulnerable.


      January 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      • I have agreed with that already Jim, it does nto help that the politicians do not come out and have ahead to head.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm

  17. You would have thought that 10,000 studies could have proved something either way wouldn’t you! If science doesn’t know ….


    January 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    • Indeed Nick its beyond comprehension that cannabis is possibly the most studied plant on the planet, yet on the face of it we know NOTHING ( rock solid evidence wise ) about it.


      January 23, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    • Particularly as most of them actually set out to find proof that cannabis is harmful – an appallingly unscientific way to approach research.

      The scientific and medical debate has run its course. What is absolutely certain is that there is no proof cannabis is harmful.

      It is in the interests of the prohibitionists to keep endlessly studying, researching and reviewing because it delays change. It is a form of trolling in itself. Just like David they want the debate to continue endlessly so that nothing ever changes.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 23, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      • After reading the Keele study, IMHO it wouldn’t surprise me if the instances of psychosis are prevalent in those people who smoke cannabis with tobacco. Poly-drug use can cause major problems, that we already know.

        Then again im no scientist so really at the end of the day i know nothing but my own anecdotal evidence. I think this is where a problem lies, while there are important lessons to be learned from anecdotal evidence, this whole area is clouded with personal judgement. This can enhance scientific conclusions or it can blur the lines so much everything of use is hidden.


        January 23, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      • It is always easy to shove your own contradictions onto another.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm

      • Indeed it is david 😉


        January 23, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      • I am not contradicting by posting the words of a professor who the pro-lobby oft quote that says it is harmful, yet you all want to deny that too?

        WHo is hypocritical and contradictory here?


        January 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm

      • David,

        We have been round the “harmful” question already.

        Go waste someone else’s time. I will bar you if you continue.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      • Of ocurse you will, you find yourself at a loggerhead with the truth.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm

      • The truth according to David.. yes that all that matters and all that is important in your bubble isnt it?


        January 23, 2011 at 1:25 pm

      • It is amazing what happens when you sitck to your guns with a fact tat does not fit with some.

        Prof’s words not mine so you cannot accuse me of making it up can you.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:53 pm

      • “It is amazing what happens when you sitck to your guns with a fact tat does not fit with some.”

        Yes it is isnt it David


        January 23, 2011 at 6:44 pm

  18. @ david. I’m 40, I own my own home, run a car, have two loans and a credit card. I work 42 hours a week in a job that I love and have been employed at for 13 yrs. I have a wife, two step children and a dog.

    I ENJOY or if you will, get PLEASURE from smoking kick ass weed. I ENJOY tending my garden. I do not drink or smoke tobacco.

    Should I be jailed for 14yrs? Maybe I need re-hab? Maybe I should take up booze to ween myself off of satans evil weed? what would you suggest? I looked twice at a white woman the other day and had an urge to listen to jazz. This reefer madness is right out of control and I just wanna get into the woodwork maaaaan.

    Truth is I am a normal guy. If I get busted. I lose my job. Loss of income means I will no doubt default on my mortgage and my creditors will seek to reclaim thier losses via balifs, who will eventually break down my door to put thier little stickers on my pocessions. University will be a struggle for my kids after we have spent the money we have put aside over the years just keep a float for a few more months.

    Then I am nothing more than another statistic/casualty in the war on drugs. And the economy is a little worse off.


    January 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    • Respectfully, maybe you should be asking why you feel you need a drug in the first place and why you cannot function normally in all the things you do without it?


      January 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm

      • lol weve also been through the whole drug free society/person thing haven’t we? There is no such thing and there never will be. You can get just as strung out on serotonin and dopamine through too much meditation .., really are we going to ban DMT at the point of death too? Get real David.


        January 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      • Boring David. As JimBob says, we’ve been there, done that. Mankind has been finding ways to modify his consciousness since time began and will continue to do so. There is the question of “choice” rather than “need” you know.

        Your arrogance and judgmental attitude towards people who make different choices from you is not attractive, neither does it advance the discussion.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      • Of course it’s boring, it is not what you want to hear.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      • Choice becomes need Peter when you cannot be without it. If you can be without it, then you would not care if it was legalised or not, hence you NEED.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      • That is illogical David and I am so, so bored with you. Please can you stop?

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm

      • Illogical? That is porfect logic Peter.

        Choice requires an ability to choose between yes and no, if you cannot say no then you are not choosing. You Need.

        Seems logical to me.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      • I choose dave, thats the whole point. You wouldnt say “I need a drug” if my post claimed I enjoyed two glasses of chateau nerf de pap with my egg and chips.


        January 26, 2011 at 6:52 am

  19. Truth is I am a normal guy. If I get busted. I lose my job. Loss of income means I will no doubt default on my mortgage and my creditors will seek to reclaim thier losses via balifs, who will eventually break down my door to put thier little stickers on my pocessions. University will be a struggle for my kids after we have spent the money we have put aside over the years just keep a float for a few more months”

    Ah! Here we have an interesting thing, so you feel you should risk all that your job, your home, your children’s happiness for the sake of your fix with a drug?

    Now tell me it is not dangerous to peoples minds?

    I think you need to be asking different questions my friend.


    January 23, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    • I see no proper answer to my very relevant and common sense observation on that statement?


      January 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm

      • I’m assuming you haven’t been banned David!

        I’m in a similar situation to the OP, so think I can answer your question.

        I don’t smoke recreationally, I smoke because it is the only medication I’ve come across that gives adequate pain relief. One smoke is enough to allow me to live my life almost normally the next day (or most of it anyway).

        Truth be told, I’m getting quite fed up with getting stoned every night, but I’m not willing to go back to the terrible standard of life I had on ‘legal’ medication.

        So tell me, what right has the Government to dictate that I should live my life in pain for _moral_ reasons?


        January 25, 2011 at 9:34 pm

  20. Peter Reynolds

    January 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    • Yes impartial as always?


      January 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm

      • So what would YOU see as impartial evidence? please supply linkage.


        January 23, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      • Proffesor Glyn was a start but of course nobody will accept what his study said, at least the parts they don;t want to hear.


        January 23, 2011 at 4:00 pm

      • Well I can only speak for myself but I accept all of Prof. Glyn’s report.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 4:13 pm

      • Including the finding that 41% of Cannabis users could expect to suffer Psychosis at some stage in life?


        January 23, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      • That is not what he said David and you know it. You are being stupid now.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 5:31 pm

      • “The study, funded by the Department of Health and based in the University of Bristol, found that individuals who used cannabis were 41 per cent more likely to have any psychosis than those who had never used the drug.”

        Okay I am being stupid? This direct quote above was of course not from a study of which Prof. Glyn was an Author. That was never said and it does not exist.okay, yeah, sure, right.

        There you go you can all go and take your drugs now and convince yourself you are always right by denying everything. There is no intelligent debate to be had on those terms.


        January 23, 2011 at 5:45 pm

      • Well that’s an interesting interpretation of the study. If the risk is small to begin with, then 41% more likely does not mean 41% of users can expect to suffer psychosis, right?

        41% more likely to have any psychosis than those who had never used the drug. I’d like to know the numbers, but I seem to recall that the number of people who develop psychosis is quite small to begin with.

        If 100 people out of 6 million were likely to have any psychosis without smoking cannabis, and 141 people out of 6 million were likely to have psychosis WITH smoking cannabis, is that 41% more likely?

        I’ll need to take a look at the study to actually find out what their methodology was to be honest. If I find the time I’ll get back to you. Sit tight eh!


        January 23, 2011 at 6:13 pm

      • He’s an idiot Sam and has just conclusively proved that. He doesn’t understand what he is reading or writing.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      • Yes but “Including the finding that 41% of Cannabis users could expect to suffer Psychosis at some stage in life?” appears to be wilfully misrepresenting the findings of the study.

        To be honest, it’s either that or a very poor understanding of the subject.


        January 24, 2011 at 6:56 pm

      • Wilful misrepresentation.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 24, 2011 at 9:57 pm

  21. David people take drugs for a variety of reasons and they are not all as bad as the media make out, it is prohibition itself that causes the social problems.

    So you saying a woman who has been sexually abused from her own father cannot take the only thing that makes her feel better? are you saying that a young 18 year old at a party is not allowed to have a great time and pop some acid or some E’s?? who are you to tell anyone what they can and cant do?

    It is all about education and off course there will always be the odd one or two who will go OTT but that is life.

    Why is someone weak because they like taking cannabis or whatever there drug of choice? should we all be like you? gosh that is scary. what difference does it make to you what others do? why not concentrate on your own problems instead?

    L Catt

    January 23, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    • What a truly pitiful argument L Catt,that has to be the worst escuse I have heard and sickeningly desperate.


      January 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm

  22. So you cannot counter properly david.

    It is true many people with addiction problems have suffered enormous abuse on levels you dont even want to accept, In your sorry world it is acceptable to smash the doors and windows and arrest and imprison someone who uses a drug to help them cope with extreme psychological stresses, hey lets go kick a cripple eh? that is the reality of your argument david, you will see victims persecuted and punished over and over again simply because the very thing that helps them is prohibited and you think that is ok.

    What advice would you give to an 27 year old heroin addict who has to prostitute her body to get hold of the only thing that helps her cope with the abuse she suffered? give her an asprin?

    Again I dont expect any sort of in depth understanding from you, as you enjoy targeting minority groups and sticking the boot in to make up for your own inadequacies, thats what your sort do.

    And as to your previous comment about winning a £10. bet… dont be so silly, you never had a bet with anyone about anything on here, simply deluding yourself.

    Why not read a book on childhood sexual abuse and addiction, perhaps it will open your mind some, then again why enlighten yourself when you can stay in ignorance and continue to kick people who you have no idea about.

    L Catt

    January 23, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    • Who said it was Ten pounds and it was not with someone on commenting on here. I still won.

      “What advice would you give to an 27 year old heroin addict who has to prostitute her body to get hold of the only thing that helps her cope with the abuse she suffered? give her an asprin?”

      I would tell her there is no excuse for prostitution in the UK with the benefit system we have, if they are doing it because they have a drug addiction then clearly they need help with that addiction and the assistance of any relevant Psychotherapy also.

      What would you suggest, giving her more Heroin I suppose.

      Why not grow up and stop looking for excuses to take drugs, it is the behaviour of an addict.


      January 23, 2011 at 5:08 pm

      • David,

        with respect, your posts have the appearance of a typical rant from a ‘Daily Fail’ Drunkie !

        As you think you are so educated, can you please let us know how the current supply model (i.e. unregulated) helps the drug victims ?

        How does it stop children buying drugs ?

        How does it take away the ‘forbidden fruits’ aspect of drugtaking ?

        How does it supply a safe product for those that use them ?

        Please enlighten us, as we all seem to be a bit confused about these issues.

        Cupid Stunt

        January 23, 2011 at 8:23 pm

  23. Still at it I see David…
    David you shame yourself through your sheer arrogance, ignorance and a lack of compassion and understanding of the human condition. Your assumption you know best, your clear disdain for those less fortunate in society and blind belief in self show you for what you are. You skirt the issues you have no answer for and show a complete lack of respect for other participants on this site. You claim to have witnessed the damage done first hand yet still there is a complete lack of understanding of people, their motivations and the pain many feel in their lives. Whilst you smugly sit penning your next comment you will undoubtedly revel yet further in your own prodigious intellect I suspect you are the one who is in need of spiritual help however, I suspect that your arrogance perpetuates the belief that few would or could understand one as complex as yourself. You insult everyone here. I’ll tell you now little man, for that is what your are… you are not half the intellect you believe your self to be. You are childish and clearly your spirit requires development. Do you love yourself.. I suspect not. You are full of fear and I for one will no longer comment whilst you remain on this site. I’ll be back as soon as you have gone.. Sorry everyone.


    January 23, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    • Dont apologise.., i for one am inclined to agree.


      January 23, 2011 at 6:47 pm

      • Forgive me gentlemen for not dealing with him more promptly. He will not trouble you anymore.

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 7:14 pm

      • Nothing to forgive Peter, you did the right thing by giving him his chance. Its shame it came to this. I Do despair at some people’s apparent lack of compassion for others. Its precisely that sort that damage our society as a whole.


        January 23, 2011 at 7:26 pm

      • No need to apologise Peter. It does however raise a very good issue that needs to be addressed. All along the anti vs pro trail the pro-lobby is going to meet up with people like this. Its like constantly banging your head against a brick wall and very demoralising. Somehow we need some calmer middle ground for the short term.

        People think and perceive differently and it appears its our job try to find the middle ground on this. Its obvious to me the anti crow don’t want to move forward. I hate that it becomes “us and them” situation though, a product of sensationalist media maybe?.


        January 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm

      • I don’t know! It’s a difficult tightrope to walk. Everyone is entitled to their say but when do you draw the line on someone who is destructive to the whole?

        Peter Reynolds

        January 23, 2011 at 10:43 pm

  24. Personally I think he was an internet troll or a wind up merchant, I would like to think that very very very few people actually think that way, most people are good and decent and sensible enough to know unjust laws, know that the war on drugs is an absolute failure and would welcome reform, the people I believe do not need persuading it is those gutless toe-rags in power who lack the moral bottle.

    L Catt

    January 23, 2011 at 8:30 pm

  25. The staunch anti’s.., there’s no point whatsoever in engaging them, their mind is made up IMHO.

    Its the “Im not sure” we need to convince and educate, the rest will come around.


    January 23, 2011 at 11:54 pm

  26. […] to promote unsubstantiated claims of a causal link between cannabis and mental disorders. Peter Reynolds explains that the Mail is, as usual, talking […]

  27. we are argue til the dogs get home whether cannabis harms some people, but the question ought to be one of law and Justice

    Should the law punish cannabis users that benefit or those that suffer, if they do no harm to others?

    Any idea that there is Justice in threatening to punish millions of otherwise law-abiding and victimless users to try to deter the small percentage of people prone to mental health problems from using cannabis is unjust and unworkable – and what we have seen in the press has clearly shown that has failed


    January 24, 2011 at 10:53 am

  28. Most of the paranoia from Cannabis actually comes from taking too much. Just like if you drank too much alcohol, there would be side effects, the alcohol side effects being much worse!

    Knock down the prohibition and you knock down the barriers of information.People would be able to look at taking safe amounts and different strains.

    As for the 41%…. Thats like the old saying “Cannabis increases Heart Attacks by 5 times” when your heart beats 5x faster when you do exercise!


    January 24, 2011 at 7:40 pm

  29. My god – smoking weed has made me able to forsee the future. Quick I must write down my lottery numbers.

    I forsee more media frenzy attacking “Skunk cannabis” as the destroyer of society and the cause of the banking crisis (Oh I forgot – that was probably cocaine fueled).

    The sooner we can seperate soft drugs and get them regulated the better – I’m nearly 50, weed is my only vice and I’ve used it on/off for 32 years with no ill effects whatsoever – however I did get addicted to prescription drugs after an accident (but that was ok because they were prescribed).

    I read the Daily Fail article and they just sensationalised the bits that suited their adgenda, I’ve read countless articles on cannabis and mental health and the majority state it can trigger a pre-existing condition but it can also medicate an existing one.

    So taking the premis that Harry had an existing mental health issue surely the argument should be – would the condition have been triggered by 5 joints/day & would it have been triggered by 5 pints/day.

    The science points to 6% of the population being at risk of mental health issues – how many would be triggered by alcohol/cannabis & I think you’ll find the figures are the same.

    To pretend that cannabis isn’t dangerous is like saying smoking or drinking isn’t dangerous – it’s all about minimising the risks & making an educated decission based on scientific facts.

    With prohibition when you are smoking Skunk (Street weed) you are effectivly using the cannabis equivelent to moonshine, no teenager in their right mind would drink moonshine out of choice but that is what the current system of prohibition is promoting (when you have no choice apart from what you are offered, you take whats offered)

    The only way to improve matters is better drugs education and better drugs awareness at school, but its got to be targeted correctly – if all your mates are saying its fun and alright then talking to frank or “just say no” isn’t going to stop you, but showing a slideshow of the contaminents they put on it to boost the profit & what happens to the money they hand over might.

    The market needs to be regulated – scientific evidence is beginning to show that smoking cannabis at an early age is more damaging & that cannabis with high levels of THC and low levels of CBD ar the ones that seem to cause the problems – but as you hand over your cash at the school gates the dealer isn’t going to ID you or tell you what your smoking so you cannot make a valid risk assesment of whats going to happen, so it realy is russian roulette.

    Theres another cannabis docu on BBC3 Thursday at 21:00 (2 parts) – lets see how this one pans out.

    Mr Bimble

    January 24, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    • Thoughtful comments Mr Bimble. Thank you.

      A good friend of mine, a regular commenter here is featured in Thursday’s programme. I am hopeful of its message.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 24, 2011 at 9:56 pm

      • If its the documentary I think it is then the makers spammed several of the cannabis forums asking for victims to be interviewed so hopefully it’ll be better than the last one but I doubt it…

        Funny they didn’t want to interview me, I don’t fit the usual “Stoner” image as I own my own home, have been in full time employment since leaving Uni, held managerial positions (not at Mc Donalds) & worked for a newspaper group.

        I still think we need to hammer out “How weed can reduce the deficit” as it’s starting to hurt filling a car with petrol (which I need to work) when I wouldn’t mind paying extra for legal weed, it is the last great untapped revenue generator where no-one is going to complain about paying it. I’d even happily pay for a license to allow me to grow a couple of plants at home for personal use only (and they could inspect me as many times as they wanted).

        As for the anti-legalisation people I ask you one straight question “if it was legal would you smoke it?” the answer is bound to be “NO” so why do they always assume if it was legalised everyone would start smoking it?

        Its a pity the documentary isn’t screened before PMQ’s as it would probably be raised, but I am still hopefull that one day soon the drugs question will be debated sensibily in the house (baroness meacher did a good job in the lords) especially now they have the problem with Sativex Vs Schedule-1.

        Mr Bimble

        January 24, 2011 at 10:27 pm

  30. Hypocricy.

    Where is this moral compass the governement seems to want to rule us by?

    Truth is cannabis does far far far less damage than alcohol, I know they did studies about how it could (that word again “could” cause damage to young people, yet they are not screaming for the “killer booze” to be included in the misuse of drugs act?

    They have lied and lied about the so called harms that cannabis does without any scientific proof whatsoever but allow this to go on under their very noses where the proof of the harm it does it well documented and well understood.

    I am not calling for booze to be banned, I just think it is incredible that the arguments they present against cannabis are basically evil and tyrannical.

    L Catt

    January 25, 2011 at 8:39 am

  31. Interpretation…

    Dear me, it never fails to amaze me, the amount of rubbish that gets quoted as fact by prohibitionists, but saying that and looking at these reports it does seem that even the professional are guessing, assuming, basically interpreting the results to back up their own beliefs..
    The very fact that cannabis use is Holland is and has been for many years widespread and hasn’t resulted in any spikes in mental health cases is testiment enough for me, afterall, you can’t get a better example to study long term data relating to the social effects of cannabis availability.

    So, it seems the mental health issue will always have professionals championing both sides of the cannabis debate and we could argue comparing both against each other until the cows come home.

    It is obvious to me that through breeding, combining ability of genetics from 2 families will in most cases result in some defects, this may be in appearance, learning ability, the immune system, or behavioral, brain chemistry disorders, it is a statistically proven fact that a certain % of every new human born will carry such defects…

    So.. does cannabis cause them, in my opinion, no but they can trigger the weakness to become evident much sooner than it may of normally, which is a possible plus side really, cannabinoids could be a very effective tool for early disagnosis of such defects and allow them to be monitored and treated much sooner than normally. It isn’t just cannabis that exagerates brain chemistry disorders, its any substance that effects brain chemistry, ie alcohol.

    Lets not forget that we now have a huge problem in society of single parent families that take any issues ralating to their children very personally , more so than with a 2 parent family because they are often made to feel they can’t cope and in a lot of cases actually can’t balance earning enough money to survive and investing adequate time in their childs upbringing andthus will point the finger at any substance to save their own inadequacies being blamed.

    The fact we should be focusing on is the very fact that this anti cannabis prapaganda is fueled some of the biggest source of tax revenue our governments have become addicted to, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical giants, all investing hundereds of millions into keeping drugs illegal as it directly benefits them by limiting the competition, surely there are laws to protect such activity? and another law to force government to research and prove any propaganda claim before it is allowed to be published and used to change public opinion.

    We need huge funding to get our points heard, we need national campaigns on google adwords, youtube, facebook to reach as many people as possible and focus on the revenue aspect saved and gained by regulating supply, which shoudl be seen as the most any government can do to truly say they are trying to protect its citizens from harm.


    January 26, 2011 at 4:29 pm

  32. It looks as if the Thursday evening program on BBC3 should be a bit better than the usual ‘Daily Fail’drivel. This article, seems to state the most negative aspect of Cannabis is the exploitation of the people growing it. i.e. one of the arguments commonly used by the pro-legislation lobby.

    Cupid Stunt

    January 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm

  33. It looks like Obamas’ take on the recent UK ‘your freedom website’ is heading in the same direction of the UK one.

    Go to:

    and select to view all questions, sorted by popularity.

    Cupid Stunt

    January 26, 2011 at 9:00 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: