Archive for the ‘Consumerism’ Category
We May Be Leaving The EU But The Soviet State Of Britain Is Already Here.
Email to my MP, Sir Oliver Letwin, concerning the Investigatory Powers Bill
From: Peter Reynolds
Sent: 25 November 2016 15:01
To: Oliver Letwin
Subject: The Investigatory Powers Bill
Dear Oliver,
Perhaps you can explain to me on what basis of reason, justice or liberty the following organisations will shortly have access at will to my (and your) internet browsing history?
This is an outrageous intrusion into my private life and completely unacceptable. I think it’s time we started a UK campaign for the right to bear arms. Every day it seems the government is becoming more and more of an oppressor. I reject this entirely and it does not have my consent.
Metropolitan Police Service
City of London Police
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
Seriously, how can any MP with any integrity or honour vote for such Soviet-style government snooping?
Kind regards,
Peter Reynolds
Cruel And Irresponsible Response from UK Government To Parliamentary Report On Medicinal Cannabis.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the response to the recent call from MPs and peers to legalise cannabis for medicinal use has come straight from the top. Theresa May’s longstanding reputation as a denier of science and evidence on drugs policy is reinforced by her peremptory dismissal of the expert report. It seems that, at least in the short term, the UK government is sticking by a policy that is discredited, ridiculous and deeply cruel.
It fell to Sarah Newton MP, minister of state at the Home Office, to respond to a parliamentary question from Roger Godsiff, Labour MP for Birmingham, Hall Green.
Roger Godsiff MP
“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will respond to the recommendations of the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform Accessing Medicinal Cannabis: Meeting Patients’ Needs, published in September 2016.”
Sarah Newton MP
“The Prime Minister responded to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform’s report ‘Accessing Medicinal Cannabis: Meeting Patients’ Needs’ on the 27 October.
Cannabis is controlled as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and, in its raw form, currently has no recognised medicinal benefits in the UK. It is therefore listed as a Schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
It is important that all medicines containing controlled drugs are thoroughly trialled to ensure they meet rigorous standards so that doctors and patients are sure of their efficacy and safety. To do otherwise for cannabis would amount to a circumvention of the clearly established and necessary regime for approving medicines in the UK.”
In other words, this is nothing more than a re-statement of the same position that the UK government has held since 1971 when legal access to medicinal cannabis was halted. Quite clearly the government has given no consideration at all to the vast amount of scientific evidence and international experience that has accumulated over the last 45 years. The latest report which took nine months to produce, took evidence from over 600 witnesses and included a review of over 20,000 scientific studies is simply cast aside. To be honest, I doubt whether it has even been read by Ms May or anyone in the Home Office or Department of Health. This is the standard that now prevails in the UK – government of the people by an unaccountable, out-of-touch, unresponsive cabal of individuals elected by a deeply flawed system that gives democracy a bad name.
On the face of it, the claim that all medicines must be thoroughly trialled seems plausible – but it is not. It is a misleading half-truth clearly intended to squash the call for access to medicinal cannabis by painting a false picture.
Doctors are allowed to prescribe any medicine, licensed or unlicensed, as they see fit, based on their own judgement. But prescribing of cannabis is specifically prohibited by Statutory Instrument despite the scientific consensus that it is far less dangerous than many, probably most commonly prescribed medicines.
So it’s not a level playing field. It’s a policy that is based on prejudice and scaremongering about recreational use of cannabis. Ms Newton’s answer is at best disingenuous but then she probably doesn’t even realise that herself. For many years Home Office policy has been systematically to mislead and misinform on cannabis and evidently under Ms May’s successor, Amber Rudd MP, such dishonesty continues.
Theresa May MP
Something will eventually force the government’s hand to change its absurd position on cannabis. Sadly the very last consideration will be scientific evidence or the will of the people. Such factors hold no sway with UK governments. Only when enough of the political elite open their eyes and examine their conscience, or some key individuals or their family members, experience the need for medicinal cannabis will change become possible. Alternatively, political upheaval may present an opportunity. The Liberal Democrats were too cowardly, weak and concerned with building their personal careers when in coalition to advance the cause they now so bravely advocate. Perhaps the SNP, with 56 MPs, all in favour of medicinal cannabis may be our best hope.
Sarah Newton is merely a puppet of the Home Office bureaucracy. Theresa May’s mendacious position on all aspects of drugs policy is well established and she is as stubborn and bigoted as they come on such matters. Only when she, in person, is subject to sufficient pressure will this cruel, ignorant and hateful policy change.
Guidelines On Cannabis For Medical Professionals.
In a new initiative, CLEAR’s scientific and medical advisor, Professor Mike Barnes, has written to the presidents of several Royal Colleges proposing the development of guidelines around the use of cannabis as medicine.
Professor Mike Barnes
This is a tricky situation for doctors. Surveys and individual reports from CLEAR members indicate that many doctors tacitly endorse their patients’ use of cannabis but clearly cannot recommend the illegal use of cannabis, however safe and effective it may be.
Professor Barnes’ letter refers to the recent APPG report, his own paper ‘Cannabis: The Evidence for Medical Use’ and says:
“…cannabis now has a reasonable evidence base for the management of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain, and the management of spasticity as well as in the management of anxiety and a use in nausea and vomiting in the context of chemotherapy.”
In conjunction with CLEAR, Professor Barnes has written to:
Royal College of Anaesthetists
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Royal College of Physicians
Royal College of Psychiatrists
His letter goes on to explain that about one million people are using cannabis as medicine:
“I do feel that doctors need guidelines to assist them when patients request advice on the use of cannabis…doctors should be properly informed about harm reduction advice and should be aware of the clinical evidence that is now guiding medicinal use in several other countries around the world.”
Our proposal is for an initial meeting to discuss the idea. If one or more of the Royal Colleges is prepared to back this initiative, CLEAR will set up and fund a working group of clinicians and medical education specialists to develop a set of guidelines.
CLEAR Statement Concerning Cannabis Legalisation Measures In US Election.
“This is marvellous news for liberty, health and human rights. The USA, unlike Britain, has a functioning democracy where the will of the people prevails rather than the bigotry and self-interest of politicians. It is wonderful to see that truth, justice and evidence is winning out over the lies and misinformation we have been fed about cannabis for almost 100 years.
In 1971, the British government abdicated all responsibility on cannabis and abandoned our communities and our children to criminal gangs. Since then all the harms have multiplied exponentially. The laws against cannabis fund organised crime, promote dangerous hidden farms which are fire risks, the destruction of rental property, selling to children, contaminated ‘moonshine’ cannabis, gang violence, lives ruined by criminal records and the cruel denial of safe, effective medicine that can relieve pain, suffering and disability.
Donald Trump has supported access to medicinal cannabis all along. Many British politicians who consider him to be an unreasonable person should now look to themselves and ask whether they are being reasonable by supporting prohibition, even for medical use.
It is time for Theresa May, Amber Rudd and the UK government to take responsibility for the £6 billion pa cannabis market. The tide of legalisation is now unstoppable and it would be deeply irresponsible for them to fail to act. They must grasp this nettle now!”
Peter Reynolds, president of CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform
Report Of Meeting With MHRA On Regulation of Cannabidiol (CBD).
Tom Whettem, Canabidol; Anthony Cohen, Elixinol UK; Tom Rowland, CBD Oils UK; Karl Spratt, Hempire; Peter Reynolds, CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform; Mike Harlington, GroGlo Research & Development
Yesterday, 3rd November 2016, six delegates from the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) met with Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) representatives at the agency’s headquarters in Victoria.
We were courteously received. The meeting was cordial, productive and enabled both sides to clarify their positions and better understand each other’s perspective.
In summary, in my opinion, there is no immediate threat to to CBD consumers or businesses. The MHRA has now extended until 31 December 2016 the date by which businesses should voluntarily comply with its opinion, either by withdrawing existing products from the market, or by complying with necessary regulation. Thereafter, the next step would be to begin the process of statutory enforcement. This would take a matter of some months and I believe, even were this to be started, we are looking at more than a year before any impact would be felt. More importantly, based on the meeting, I think the outcome is likely to be that we can negotiate a form of regulation that will work for everyone.
The MHRA team was led by Gerald Heddell, Director of Inspection, Enforcement and Standards. Also present were regulatory advisors David Olszowska and Chris Groutides; Dr Chris Jones, Manager of the Medicines Borderline Section; Greg Markey, Senior Medical Assessor and Malcolm Evans, Head of Patient, Public and Stakeholder Engagement. Mr Heddell opened the meeting by thanking us for bringing to the agency’s attention just how many people are using CBD, some for quite serious medical conditions.
The MHRA set out its reasons for its opinion that products containing CBD used for medical purposes are medicines. Greg Markey explained the mechanisms of action and pharmacology that had been considered and Dr Jones explained that the Borderline Section existed to deal specifically with products where it was difficult to determine whether they should be regarded as medicines or food supplements. The example was offered of vitamin C where if it was being used to treat scurvy then it was clearly a medicine, whereas if it was used to supplement a normal diet it could be regarded as a food supplement. We were able to explain that all so-called CBD products on the market, with the exception of crystals, are actually whole plant extracts from low-THC cannabis, usually industrial hemp. We pointed out that the growth in the CBD market had been driven by people seeking the therapeutic benefits of medicinal cannabis which until now had been denied by the British government.
The nub of the issue is really the nature of the condition for which CBD is used. The MHRA has already issued orphan designations for CBD for Dravet Syndrome, graft versus host disease and perinatal asphyxia. Orphan designations are granted where the benefit of a medicine can be recognised even though necessary regulatory processes have not yet been completed. It is important to understand that this is what has guided the MHRA’s opinion, viewing CBD as a medicine for very serious conditions.
We discussed a range of options whereby, at the lowest level, CBD products could continue to be marketed as a food supplement. For minor conditions, not requiring medical supervision, it may be possible to obtain a Traditional Herbal Registration (THR) at a cost of a few hundred pounds. A third option is a ‘Specials’ exemption where a doctor or prescriber has specified and taken responsibility for an unlicensed medicine for a particular patient. Finally, the highest level is a Marketing Authorisation (MA) where the costs including fees and clinical trials are probably a minimum of £250,000.
It is our view that CBD products should be regulated at all these different levels dependent on the purpose for which they are used and the concentration at which CBD is present. We have agreed that we will write formally setting out these proposals and the MHRA will respond accordingly.
The UKCTA and a number of individual companies have now obtained legal advice including counsel’s opinion. We have shared this with the MHRA and formal solicitors letters have already been served. In essence, the advice is that the MHRA has failed to comply with its own guidelines and requirements in issuing its opinion to CBD suppliers and that any requirement to comply with regulations would have to be addressed on an individual, product by product basis.
So, all in all, we believe the meeting was a success. We demonstrated that the new trade association is to be taken seriously and that we will work constructively with the agency. There was visible surprise at the level of professionalism we presented, particularly with the legal advice we had obtained. I believe we convinced the MHRA that we could establish a set of rules, guidelines and standards that would enable the industry to comply with its requirements.
The CBD market in the UK is presently worth several million pounds a year. If it is to continue to grow, provide safe, effective products for consumers and patients and job security for its workers, then we need to establish UKCTA so that it effectively represents the whole industry. We need to show that we are responsible, we care, we are professionals and we are ready to put our collective head above the parapet as a legal, ethical and regulated industry.
MHRA Backtracking Super Fast On CBD Ban.
In advance of the meeting between the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) and the MHRA on Thursday, there has been a flurry of activity which amounts to a climb down by the regulator.
This statement was published on the MHRA website at lunchtime today.
“Update 1 November 2016
An MHRA spokesperson said:
While MHRA has given its opinion that products containing cannabidiol (CBD) used for medical purposes are medicines, we have also carefully considered the needs of individuals using CBD products to treat or manage the symptoms of medical conditions.
Our primary concern is patient safety. In order to ensure that products remain available until individuals have the opportunity to discuss their treatment with their doctor, companies now have until 31 December 2016 to voluntarily operate within the law, by withdrawing their existing products from the market, or working with MHRA to satisfy the legal requirements of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
We have today written to the manufacturers of CBD to make them aware of the timeline for engagement.
It is vital that medicines meet safety, quality and efficacy standards to protect public health.”
Originally the MHRA wrote to CBD suppliers in threatening terms:
“You must cease to sell, supply, promote, advertise or process orders for the above products until appropriate authorisation has been granted for them. You must confirm this in writing within 28 days from the date of this letter that you have taken the above steps.”
So quite a change in tone. The MHRA seems to have recognised that contrary to its declared mission ‘to improve health’, its original statement actually endangered the health of tens of thousands of people.
Additionally, solicitors representing the UKCTA have now written to the MHRA seeking clarification of its intentions and making three crucial points:
- The letters to CBD suppliers and the MHRA’s original press statement have caused serious financial damage to the CBD industry.
- The MHRA has conducted no effective consultation with stakeholders.
- The MHRA’s own guidelines require it to consider each product on a case by case basis and a blanket ban on products containing CBD would be unlawful.
Professor Mike Barnes
Professor Mike Barnes, scientific and medical advisor to CLEAR, commented:
“The MHRA’s new stance is an improvement from their previous position. However, I cannot see any value in delaying only a few months. Some patients might be able to find an alternative medicine from their doctor but many people will have already tried alternative medications and found that CBD is the only satisfactory treatment for their condition. This is the case, for example, for children with epilepsy who will have almost certainly have been under the care of a specialist and tried available anticonvulsants and found that CBD is the only treatment that works for them. The MHRA does not seem to realise the impact of this arbitrary and rushed decision which will clearly be detrimental and potentially have very serious (and in some cases life threatening) implications for some people. The MHRA need to work with the manufacturers and the medical profession to determine the best way forward that both recognises that cannabis based products have medicinal value, and as such need proper trials of efficacy and safety, yet on the other hand does not place existing users at risk of harm”.
MHRA Confirms Meeting With CBD Industry Representatives.
Today, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), has arranged a meeting with representatives from the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA) to discuss its designation of cannabidiol (CBD) as a medicine.
A request for a meeting was was first made in writing on 20th September 2016, when the possibility of the MHRA’s action was still little more than a rumour. Nearly six weeks later, after repeated requests, complaints and lobbying from many companies, individuals and MPs, the meeting has been fixed for 3rd November 2016.
The main aim of the meeting will be to discuss interim arrangements for people currently using CBD as a food supplement. Clearly, we will also address concerns over the impact of this decision on many small businesses and the people they employ.
Professor Mike Barnes Speaks Out On the CBD Ban.
Professor Mike Barnes, Scientific and Medical Advisor to CLEAR
Professor Mike Barnes, neurologist, scientific and medical advisor to CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform, has issued the following statement.
“It is encouraging that the MRHA is recognising that CBD has medicinal value but it is concerning that many people benefitting from CBD now will suffer in the short term as good quality manufacturers have to stop production pending MRHA approval”
A redacted copy of the letter now being sent to all CBD suppliers can be seen here.
For some weeks, rumours and half stories have been swirling around about the MHRA taking action on CBD.
Initially a number of suppliers were warned about making medicinal claims, even testimonials from satisfied customers were ruled as unlawful. Anything which suggested that CBD was a medicine or provided therapeutic effects was ruled out under UK medicines legislation.
Responsible CBD suppliers have known this for some time and were scrupulous in ensuring no such claims were made, even including disclaimers explicitly stating that their products were not for medical use. But as CLEAR has reported many times before, the CBD market is full of cowboys, get-rich-quick scam artists that tell bare faced lies about their products as well as making outlandish claims for the medicinal benefits. The crackdown from the MHRA was inevitable when these fools put their short term gain ahead of developing a responsible and self-regulating market in which CBD could continue to be sold as a food supplement.
We have seen every sort of bad practice it is possible to imagine. Some suppliers have attacked all of their competitors, stating that they are the only ‘ethical’ supplier and everyone else is telling lies. MediPen put all its resources and efforts into marketing and PR without providing proper information to customers about what its product contained. It achieved great coverage in tabloids like the Metro and the Mirror and even managed to spin a wholly misleading story that the NHS was “trialling” its product (In fact it was at last using an NHS accredited laboratory to test its product contents, that is all). Another supplier called Sacred Kana was rebranding cheap and nasty Romanian hemp extract and selling a bottle for just over £50, claiming it contained 10,000 mg of CBD. Testing showed that it actually contained less than 200 mg. Wrapped up in a warm, cuddly hippy-style marketing campaign, they were trying to pass themselves off as the Rick Simpson of CBD when all they are is conmen.
Responsible suppliers did include CBD information on their websites and often linked to scientific studies and research. Clearly, even this has become too much for the MHRA and now the market is being closed down. You can thank the greedy idiots, the conmen and the barrow boy salesmen trying to pretend they were scientists.
Of course the truth is that CBD is medicine, so the MHRA isn’t wrong. Most CBD products are, in fact, low-THC, whole plant extracts, so they were, effectively, a legal form of cannabis. The therapeutic benefits they offered were not just from CBD but from the ‘entourage effect’, recognised by science as the synergy between all the different components of cannabis. Unfortunately, we even had some companies promoting the fact that their so-called ‘CBD oil’ actually contained significant proportions of THC and CBN, both ‘controlled drugs’ under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The crackdown was inevitable but it may leave tens of thousands of people with real health problems as they are no longer able to obtain what they were legitimately using as a food supplement.
Crispin Blunt MP, Political Advisor to CLEAR
Of course, designating CBD as a medicine is inconsistent with the UK government’s position that cannabis has “no medicinal value” but it’s been common knowledge that this is untrue for many years. The only good news coming out of this debacle is that this could be the beginning of proper, honest regulation of cannabis as medicine. But if we’re looking at clinical trials before CBD can be marketed again, it could be many years away and that’s after someone or some company decides to invest the £250,000 or more that could cost.
CBD products will still be available offshore and you probably will be able to order online and have them delivered by post. The price is bound to go up and you will be committing a criminal offence by importing an unlicensed medicine but no doubt may will choose to take this risk.
CLEAR is working with the UK Cannabis Trade Association and our Advisory Board members Professor Mike Barnes and Crispin Blunt MP, to try and persuade the MHRA to enter a consultation process and allow CBD to remain available as a food supplement in the short term.
In the longer term, as we know far too well, the only solution is for a proper system of regulation for cannabis. including its use as medicine.
Fast Developing News On CBD And Medicinal Cannabis.
We learned today that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has started issuing letters to CBD suppliers advising them that CBD is being designated as a medicine and that sale of CBD products must stop within 28 days.
This will be alarming news to many people. However, it is a complex situation which has some positive aspects to it. In the short term, if you are already using CBD products, you would be well advised to stock up as much as you can afford.
CLEAR has been aware of this possibility for several weeks and consequently we have been working with leading CBD suppliers and licensed producers of both low and high THC cannabis on establishing the UK Cannabis Trade Association (UKCTA). We are already in correspondence with the MHRA seeking to represent all stakeholders, to establish a consultation process on regulating CBD products and to protect the interests of producers, suppliers and consumers.
What these MHRA letters mean is that for CBD to be sold in future, suppliers will have to obtain either a ‘marketing authorisation’ or a ‘traditional herbal registration’ from the MHRA.
A marketing authorisation can be fantastically expensive, requiring an initial application fee of £103,000 and full scale clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy.
A traditional herbal registration is not as expensive, around £6,000 but relies on the product having been “traditionally used to treat the stated condition for a minimum of 30 years, 15 years of which must have been in the European Union (EU).” It also requires “scientific evidence relating to the safety, quality and traditional use of the herbal product”. It is far from certain that CBD will qualify for this scheme and in any event registration is only granted if the medicine is used for minor health conditions where medical supervision is not required.
CBD is not a ‘controlled drug’ and is not prohibited but most CBD products are in fact low-THC, whole plant extracts derived from industrial hemp, legally grown under licence. So yes, they are a legal form of cannabis and, of course, according to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis has ‘no medicinal value’. So, you may well ask, how can the MHRA classify it as a medicine?
MHRA Headquarters
This is just the first of many complications for the MHRA, the Home Office and the government. Potentially, it could be very positive as it could make the government acknowledge the medicinal value of cannabis and, in effect, force the beginning of cannabis regulation.
It has been certain for some time that many of the CBD products presently on the market are unlawful because they contain levels of THC and CBN which exceed the limits stated in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. Some CBD suppliers have taken a head in the sand attitude to this, even in some cases foolishly promoting the THC levels in their products. This led to CLEAR removing its endorsement of one supplier earlier this year and recommending CBD Oils UK instead.
The path ahead is uncertain. The UKCTA is pressing for an urgent meeting with the MHRA. Apart from the advice to consumers to stock up, these will be very worrying times for CBD suppliers and their employees. Another factor is that GW Pharmaceuticals is very close to applying for FDA approval in the USA and an MHRA marketing authorisation for its CBD epilepsy medicine, Epidiolex.
CLEAR, the UKCTA and leading CBD companies are working together to clarify and progress this situation. We will keep you closely informed of developments.
Facebook Says Calling A Black Man A Baboon “Doesn’t Violate Our Community Standards”.
On the other hand Facebook says that recommending a responsible, reputable supplier of verified, lab-tested, legal CBD food supplements does violate its standards.
LoveHemp 40% CBD Oil
At a guess (because you can’t get a straight answer from Facebook about anything), the issue is “We prohibit any attempts by unauthorised dealers to purchase, sell or trade prescription drugs, marijuana, firearms or ammunition.”
Now CBD food supplements are fully legal products. They are not prescription drugs. True, CBD is present in cannabis but it is also found in many other plants. So it’s difficult to understand what the problem is – but not as difficult as getting a coherent answer from Mr Zuckerberg and his disciples.
For the ‘offence’ of recommending a CBD supplier your page gets a seriously heavy warning to all page admins, a threat of permanent deletion and I, as the author of the post sharing a link to CBD Oils UK, was banned from Facebook for 30 days. Such is the reality of living under the diktat of the unaccountable, overbearing, bureaucratic monolith that Facebook has become.
However, when some vile American Trumpoid leaves a comment on the CLEAR page calling a black man a baboon, that’s just fine and dandy.
It is time that Facebook was placed under serious regulation for its unfair and oppressive trading practices. It has become so ubiquitous that it now has a responsibility that goes beyond any independent business. It is virtually impossible for individuals and small businesses to operate without a Facebook account. It should be subject to strict standards and forced to comply with fair practices.
I’m all for free enterprise but it’s time to slam Facebook hard for its tax dodging, its failure to take responsibility for publishing abuse and its unfair treatment of users and advertisers.
Peter Reynolds 