Which Conservative Leadership Candidate Has The Intelligence And Courage To Legalise Cannabis?
There are a host of strong, evidence-based reasons why legalising cannabis is a very good idea. It’s also an idea that fits perfectly with Tory principles of free enterprise, small government and fighting crime. In private, most politicians now realise this and that the present policy on cannabis causes far more harm than it prevents. But do any of the Conservative Leadership candidates have the vision to make this policy their own? It would be a massive vote winner at the next General Election and could rescue the party from its terminal decline into old age.
Dominic Raab. He probably understands the evidence well but may feel this is just too controversial a policy to help him overcome concerns about his relative youth and lack of experience. It would do wonders for his brand though and, on a good day, he probably does have the courage.
Esther McVey. Not a chance. If ever there was an anodyne, squeaky-clean, don’t rock the boat candidate for the twin set and pearls ladies at the local Conservative association, it’s Esther. Her candidacy simply isn’t strong enough to sustain such a radical policy.
Rory Stewart. With his background, no one should understand better the counterproductive nature of the war on drugs. He may have tried opium in Iran and he must have come across some the world’s finest hashish in Afghanistan. He has the knowledge and the vision but does he have the courage? His exciting campaign has the energy to take on this policy and make it his own.
Boris Johnson. Famously describing the idea that he had never taken drugs as “an outrageous slur”, Boris has confirmed that he has smoked “quite a few spliffs” and that “it was jolly nice”. But for all the bluster and bravado, he probably lacks the courage and this is a policy that requires diligent and patient explanation, so probably not something he’s well suited to.
Sajid Javid. Credit is due to the home secretary who finally moved on access to cannabis as medicine but this was probably more to do with asserting his new role in the cabinet. It is remarkable though that he achieved this while Theresa May was PM. Not only is she as regressive as they come on drugs policy, she also has a vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal due to her husband’s financial interest in GW Pharmaceuticals. Sadly though, Sajid is more likely to appeal to ‘hang ’em and flog ’em’ Tories rather than those with intelligence and courage.
Andrea Leadsom. Mrs Leadsom is notable as one of the few Tories who treated the late Paul Flynn and his cannabis campaigning with respect rather than contempt and ridicule but she’s unlikely to be the sort of leader who would take forward such a bold policy. Please prove us wrong Andrea!
Matt Hancock. Forever to be defined by his dishonest testimony on the Leveson Inquiry whilst culture secretary, Hancock doesn’t have the balls for anything radical. He’s already punching above his weight at the Department of Health and his loyalty to the Fleet Street barons is unlikely to persuade him to challenge one of their favourite topics for sensationalism.
Michael Gove. Although strong on intellect and fully capable of radical policy, Gove is in serious deficit on sincerity and integrity. With Mrs Gove (Sarah Vine) as a rampaging Daily Mail hack, probably writing about a cannabis crazed axe murderer right now, this is probably a step too far for him and his natural constituency is older people, certainly in attitude if not in years.
Jeremy Hunt. Definitely the choice for conservative Conservatives, Mr Hunt probably understands the arguments but sees this as a policy for the next generation. Undoubtedly a decent man, a one nation Tory, made of stronger stuff than first appears but unlikely to want to put his name to such a controversial policy.
Kit Malthouse. One would have hoped that Malthouse’s previous role as London Deputy Mayor for Policing would have given him an insight into drugs policy but it’s a subject he seems strangely silent on. He apparently has no record of any comment on the subject at all. So he may be a dark horse but almost certainly one that won’t be anywhere near the finishing line.
Mark Harper. As an ex-Home Office minister it’s unlikely that Harper is progressive on drugs policy and it certainly isn’t a subject that he has any record on. He’s unlikely to be in favour of cannabis law reform but also unlikely to get anywhere in the leadership race. Hardly a reformer, more of a classic Tory stuffed shirt.
James Cleverly. Clever by name but not too clever in practice, James has confessed to smoking weed in his youth but of course it was all a ‘dreadful mistake’. He showed a terrible lack of understanding as one of the MPs to eagerly jump on the bandwagon of ‘middle class cocaine users being responsible for knife crime’. Not much hope of any insight, intelligence or courage here.
‘Cannabis Law is Simply Criminal’. Letter to the Sunday Times, 26th May 2019
The Sunday Times, 26th May 2019
Thank you to the Sunday Times for publishing my letter about cannabis today.
In fact, it was orginally a comment left on this article: ‘CBD products being rated for tax — but still seized’. I received an email asking for my permission to publish it as a letter which clearly I was happy to agree to.
Obviously I accept that letters will be edited but when this is done to alter very substantially the original meaning, questions have to be asked.
Why is the Sunday Times protecting corrupt, senior British politicians from facts which are in the public domain? In the original the last two paragraphs read:
“Our politicians are incompetent, stupid and in some cases brazenly corrupt on this subject and reform is inevitable, although how long it will take remains to be seen.
While Theresa May and the Home Office drugs minister, Victoria Atkins MP, both continue to make personal financial gain from licensed cannabis production, the UK has a steeper hill to climb than Ireland. Corruption at the very top of government is difficult to overcome.”
VIDEO. After 50 Years of Campaigning for Access to Cannabis as Medicine, at last MPs Have Started to Listen
Sir Mike Penning MP opening the debate on 20th May 2019
For 50 years campaigners have been battering on the doors of Parliament, writing to and meeting their MPs, presenting detailed, cogent arguments backed up with scientific evidence. We have fought. We have argued. We have marched, demonstrated, pleaded, begged and we have been rejected. We have been ignored, abused, ostracised, treated like drug pushers and with contempt by those who are supposed to govern us within a democratic system.
Now at last they are listening. They have opened their eyes and their ears and they finally seem to understand. Of course, now they are all congratulating themselves on ‘their’ efforts and achievements but that is the nature of MPs. We, who have fought this war and see victory in sight will just have to swallow that. History will record the courage and the suffering of those who were in the front line when MPs refused even to speak to us. Never forget, it is less than two years since a senior cabinet minster told me “the settled view of ministers is that the medicinal campaign is just an excuse to take cannabis”.
Yesterday’s debate in Parliament shows that MPs have finally got the message and we can at last be certain that cannabis will soon be widely and readily available to those who need it.
The CBD Market Can Help Drive Cannabis Law Reform But Selling So-Called ‘CBD Flowers’ Could Take Us Backwards
Jim Weathers of Puff ‘n Stuff CBD shop, Cork, Ireland
Compliant businesses operating responsibly within the legal cannabis sector will help to drive reform. Blurring the lines between legal and illegal products will delay progress.
It seems that the crackdown on the open sale of cannabis flowers online and in high street stores is here. Both in the UK and Ireland, several shops have been raided in recent weeks and some people are facing potential charges of supplying a class B drug and a possible jail sentence.
These flowers, sold under meaningless pseudonyms such as ‘CBD buds’ or ‘hemp flowers’ are cannabis and cannabis is a controlled drug in both the UK and Ireland. As CLEAR has been warning for many months, there is no way that these can ever be ‘exempt products’ in the same way as CBD oil. Their THC content makes no difference. The penalty is the same for any type of cannabis whether it contains zero THC or 25% THC.
It’s unclear whether CBD oil is legal at all in Ireland. A more accurate description for these products is low-THC cannabis extracts and whereas the UK makes specific provision for exempt products in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, there does not seem to be any such provision in Irish law.
In other EU countries an even wider crackdown on CBD products is underway, fuelled also by the extraordinary and clearly unsustainable attempt to deem all cannabis extracts as ‘novel foods’.
Now it shouldn’t need to be said but CLEAR stands for an end to the prohibition of cannabis and all our work is directed towards that end. Some people seem very confused that our efforts to clarify the law mean that we are on the side of prohibition but this is not the case. Through our trade association, Cannabis Professionals (CannaPro) we refuse to certify businesses that sell cannabis flowers. They are cheating their customers by misleading them that these products are legal. They are also cheating all those other businesses operating within the legal cannabis sector who are working hard to remain compliant. They are undermining the very good work that the CBD industry is doing to drive wider cannabis law reform.
Of course, many of us are buying cannabis illegally already. Without our local dealers where would we all be under the oppressive and ridiculous regime under which we live? But our aim and the aim of all responsible cannabis campaigns is to ‘get the dealers off the street’ and move the trade into licensed, regulated outlets. The emergence of the CBD market and high street retailers selling CBD oil has shown how this could work and there is no doubt at all that it has been a very significant factor in increasing public acceptance of cannabis and the recent reforms for medical access.
The people selling cannabis flowers and claiming they are legal are not heroes, campaigners or warriors in the war on prohibition. They are confidence tricksters, seizing the opportunity to make a quick buck by cheating and endangering their customers. No one is going to go to jail for buying cannabis but if you’ve bought low THC flowers and get charged with possession that could ruin you future prospects of travel, a career, even of keeping your driving licence. If you’re going to take that risk you need to do so with your eyes open, with the honest trade of an illegal dealer rather than the dishonest trade of a shop or a website that is telling you lies.
Also, be very careful what you are buying. The ‘CBD flowers’ currently being advertised are most certainly not what they claim to be. The strain names are being misused. White Widow, Lemon Haze or Pineapple Express do not come with 20% CBD and only traces of THC. These products have been doctored. There simply aren’t any cannabis strains that contain these constituents in these proportions. What is probably happening is that they are being sprayed with CBD isolate and possibly terpene extracts to come with what are artificial cannabis buds. Buy these and you are being cheated on many levels and you really don’t know what you are actually inhaling.
We are making steady and accelerating progress towards a rational cannabis policy but this latest development is unwelcome and unhelpful. Trust your usual dealer. If you’re buying cannabis flower, it comes with THC. If you want added CBD take a little oil or vape some CBD crumble. This will give you a far better result than these fake flowers. It will enhance the therapeutic properties of your cannabis if you’re consuming for medical reasons. It will give you a far better buzz if you’re consuming for pleasure.
Nothing good will come from these fake flowers. Compliant businesses operating responsibly within the legal cannabis sector will help to drive reform. Blurring the lines between legal and illegal products will delay progress.
Ignorant Doctors Bring Shame On Their Profession With Foolish Words on Cannabis
What is it in these British Isles that has resulted in a medical establishment that uses prejudice, scaremongering and specious argument to object to the medical use of cannabis?
The astonishing ignorance that pervades the medical profession on this subject is demonstrated once again by a ridiculous letter in today’s Irish Times. In a display of hubris, arrogance and plain stupidity, these people who assume they are due our respect, have conflated the issues of medical and recreational use in the most destructive and confusing way. These doctors are fundamentally failing in their duty to ‘do no harm’ both in undermining progress towards use of cannabis as medicine and in not providing this medicine to their patients immediately.
The sheer stupidity of the argument advanced by these doctors is breathtaking. They object to progress towards medical availablility by promoting the old chestnut of cannabis in recreational use causing psychosis. Their point is entirely irrelevant, it has nothing to do with medical use. It is no different from denying morphine to patients to control the most severe pain, following an operation, severe injury or at end-of-life, because some people use heroin as a recreational drug. It is a shameful, illogical, irrational and deeply cruel argument that shoud rest heavily on these doctors’ consciences.
And the psychosis argument is nothing but scaremongering anyway. The evidence clearly shows that the risk of cannabis use correlating with a diagnosis of psychosis is one in 20,000. As the National Geographic reports, the risk of being struck by lightning in one’s lifetime is merely one in 3,000.
The letter then descends into further evidence-free scaremongering, again totally irrelevant to the use of cannabis as medicine. The risks of cannabis are vastly and dishonestly exaggerated by doctors who clearly have no real idea what they are putting their names to.
It’s a disgrace that this letter has been composed and submitted to the Irish Times and the doctors’ new campaign group, the Cannabis Risk Alliance, is a fraud.
Shame on these quacks who have brought their profession into disrepute and stand in the way of providing proper medical care to their patients. This must be the final nail in the coffin of unquestioning respect and belief in doctors. They have shown beyond doubt that they do not deserve to be held in such high regard.
The EU’s Attempt To Deem Cannabis Extracts As Novel Foods Will Fail.
Status of Hemp Extracts in Europe – European Industrial Hemp Association
The European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) has published an excellent eight page document which refutes the recent move by EU food safety agencies to deem cannabis extracts as ‘novel foods’.
The document explains the entire situation and demonstrates very clearly that this move by the EU is misguided. It shows how these products have been consumed in Europe fro many years, if not centuries, probably millennia and that the EU has previously confirmed in writing that they are not novel.
Aside from these fundamental issues, there are a number of reasons why the process the EU and the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) have followed is flawed and unlawful.
What seems absolutely clear is that this initiative, which is intended to close down the burgeoning CBD market, is based on the intervention of vested interests which are concerned to see a multimillion pound/euro industry emerge in the space of a few years, almost exclusively amongst small and medium-sized businesses. This is an opportunity which multinational conglomerates have missed and there is no doubt that its success is affecting many existing markets, notably over-the-counter pain medicines.
The EU and government agencies such as the FSA have always been the friends of big business and the intention here has been to force small business into huge costs associated with novel food authorisation which would effectively close their businesses down.
There are many overblown conspiracy theories, particularly around cannabis for medical use and the pharmaceutical industry but this attack on the CBD market, for no valid reason, is difficult to explain in any other way. It seems certain that improper pressure has been brought to bear on these regulators and they are trying to use their powers, improperly and unlawfully, to protect the interests of big business.
They are too late. The CBD business has grown very quickly and is now too far advanced to be closed down and there is no justifiable reason to do so. This attempt to impose novel foods status will fail.
CBD Switzerland. Whole Plant Extract From Swiss-Grown Industrial Hemp.
Although something in my value system, no doubt instilled in my now very distant childhood, tells me that medicine is supposed to taste bad, there is no strict correlation between nasty taste and powerful effect. Some cannabis extracts taste foul, others are bearable and there a few that capture the distinctive, earthy taste of the plant and are really very nice.
The first time I saw a bottle of CBD Switzerland oil, I was pretty sceptical. It’s virtually crystal clear and I thought this is isolate in a carrier oil or it’s had all the goodness refined out of it – but the taste is just wonderful. The new trend for cooking with cannabis is a strange mix of hype, ignorance, fad-of-the-moment veganism and in a few cases its about getting high but there is a cannabis taste that is really desirable and works well in both sweet and savoury dishes. CBD Switzerland has captured that taste in a bottle.
The lab tests and a week of regular use confirmed for me that this is very much the real thing. There are other oils that I also rate very highly for taste but the combination of taste and clarity is stunning and I expect it is what more and more consumers will be looking for as the CBD market matures. This is probably the most modern, consumer friendly oil on the market. No doubt, a little further down the line, the same expertise in extraction and refinement can be applied to a THC product and that will be a winner.
CBD Switzerland offers its oil in virtually any specification required, either zero THC or with the trace levels that are present in a full spectrum extract from plants with 0.2% THC. Standard concentrations are 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or 25% in either hempseed or MCT carrier oil. Full spectrum soft gels are available containing 10mg CBD each. Recently a THC-free distillate has been added with either 95% or 75% CBD content, a full spectrum, liposomal, water soluble mix and CBD vape liquid. As a white label supplier, CBD Switzerland offers everything that a CBD business could need to formulate and produce its own products.
Review. ‘The Beginner’s Guide to Medical Cannabis’ by Prof. Michael Barnes
There was just one word which came immediately to mind as I began to read this book – clear. It is a paragon of clarity and although I am very familiar with Mike’s writing, in personal emails as well as published works, he has exceeded my expectations and this is a truly excellent book.
In fact, I think it undersells itself. It is far from a ‘beginner’s guide’, it is a definitive guide and without overcomplicating anything, it covers everything of importance, accurately and clearly. There is also a place for a more technical guide but that is for a tiny audience. If doctors would read this book it would provide them with everything they need to know and a lot more than they do know about many drugs they prescribe every day.
It provides an excellent explantion of what cannabis is and how it works and a very practical guide to the endocannabinoid system. It looks at which medical conditions cannabis can help with, side effects, drug interactions and the legal position in different parts of the world. It also covers the history of cannabis and its prohibition.
Mike is unerringly accurate and I couldn’t find the slightest thing that I disagreed with, which is extremely unusual for a pedant like me. The proof reading leaves a lot to be desired and this is something I have noticed in several recently published books. It seems to be something publishers are skimping on. So while there’s no need to die in a ditch for it, mistakes like this, on page 111, are best avoided: “Wild cannabis, sometimes known as feral cannabis or dickweed[sic]…”
I hope Mike will forgive me when I say that this book really does make the truth about cannabis clear. Buy it here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginners-Guide-Medical-Cannabis-Guides/dp/1912798069
Surely it’s Unethical for an ‘Impartial’ BBC Journalist to Switch Instantaneously to a Political Candidate?
Or Does it Just Confirm the Worst Fears About the BBC?
Everybody with eyes, ears and a brain knows the BBC is packed with Remainers from top to bottom. It does its best to pretend to be balanced but it’s always been soft left, pro-status quo and the oily Gavin Esler demonstrates just how corrupt our so-called ‘national broadcaster’ has become. I’m just surprised the BBC’s Europe correspondent, Katya Adler, hasn’t joined him.
The growing strength of the majority, determined to enforce the Brexit vote, defies the power of the BBC. Despite its calculated propaganda and disinformation campaign, the resolution of those who value our self-determination is set to triumph.
Esler is an unprincipled shyster who has destroyed any future journalistic career by his brazen deceit. Such shameful conduct, without the decency of even a short pause, condemns his honour, his integrity and his life’s work. He won’t win any seat anywhere and he can slink off into obscurity. As for Change UK, which has launched on a platform of not changing anything, it’s just a rather silly joke.
When, with the Brexit Party, we ‘Change Politics for Good’, the governance of the BBC and the mafia-like culture that pervades it should be high on the target list for cleansing.
The Desperate Rearguard Action the British Medical Establishment is Fighting Against Cannabis
Professor Finbar O’Callaghan
This Arrogant Man Must Face Tough Questions About his Stance on
Cannabis, his Financial Interests and his Breathtaking Hypocrisy.
Professor Finbar O’Callaghan introduced himself at the recent oral evidence session of the Health and Social Care Committee in these terms:
“My name is Professor Finbar O’Callaghan and I am here as president of the British Paediatric Neurology Association which is the association which represents all paediatric neurologists in the UK. I’m also a consultant paediatric neurologist at Great Ormond Street, an epileptologist and professor of paediatric neuroscience at UCL. I have a particular interest in epidemiology and clinical trials and in particular running clinical trials in childhood epilepsy.”
It’s hardly surprising then that in such a pre-eminent position, his opinion on the use of medical cannabis in paediatric epilepsy is regarded as if it had the force of law amongst doctors. But I point you to his final sentence and his declared adherence to the doctrine and close involvement in the multi-million pound industry of clinical trials.
Note that Professor O’Callaghan is now becoming the medical establishment’s poster boy in opposing the prescription of cannabis as medicine. He is now disparaging its use for fibromyalgia in adults, something he is no more qualified about than a junior medical student.
Clinical trials cost tens of millions of pounds (at least) and their primary purpose, at which they do not always succeed, is to ensure the safety of experimental medicines, usually single molecule drugs, synthesised in a laboratory, which may be highly toxic. All such trials are financed by the pharmaceutical industry with the intention of gaining a licence (known as a marketing authorisation) to enable them to sell their medicines at what are invariably huge prices. The businesses and people involved in the clinical trials process earn vast amounts of money and have a vested interest in ensuring that the regulation of all medicines follows this route.
All clinical trials are conducted under the auspices of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), a government agency which is directed, managed and staffed almost exclusively by people who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry. They all continue to benefit financially from the self-reinforcing, self-regulating and self-serving medical establishment which is built on the pharmaceutical industry and its invention of clinical trials.
Clinical trials are the medical establishment’s ‘kool aid’. They are a panacea for doctors’ ethical and clinical decision making. If anything goes wrong, even the most horrendous, catastrophic results, if a doctor has prescribed a medicine which has been through the clinical trials procedure, they can wash their hands, disavow any responsibility and move on to their next ‘doctoring-by-numbers’ appointment. Increasingly, doctors make very few real decisions. Their actions are all pre-determined by protocols and drugs created and approved by the medical establishment.
So cannabis really doesn’t fit into this system and for Professor O’Callaghan unless any medicine goes through a clinical trial in the specialty which he behaves as if he owns – childhood eplipesy, it will never be good enough to get his endorsement and will therefore be shut out of normal practice and very difficult if not impossible for patients to access. It is, in fact, a ‘stitch-up’. A term the Professor will understand as he advocates slicing into a child’s brain in a surgical procedure before trying whole plant cannabis as a medicine.
Note that cannabis is not an experimental medicine, nor a single molecule drug, synthesised in a laboratory, nor is it highly toxic. It consists of around 500 molecules, is synthesised in a plant and has been in widespread use, we know beyond doubt, for at least 10,000 years. Currently it is in regular use by 250,000,000 people worldwide as a recreational substance. In modern times it has been in use as a medicine in Israel since the early 1990s, California since 1996, in Canada and the Netherlands since 2001. There is no evidence of any significant problems or side effects at a population level, none whatsoever where it is used as a medicine under medical supervision. The only evidence of any significant negative effects is where it is used in extremely potent form as a recreational substance by children and even then the numbers involved are tiny.
This is why in every jurisdiction throughout the world where cannabis for medical use is legally permitted, it is through a special system outside pharmaceutical medicines regulation. Every other government that has recognised the enormous benefit that it offers has come to the same conclusion: cannabis is a special case. It is much, much safer than pharmaceutical products. We need an ‘Office of Medicinal Cannabis’ as there is in the Netherlands, or ‘Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations’ as administered by Health Canada. Colorado has its ‘Medical Marijuana Registry Program’ and other US states have similar arrangements. Israel’s Ministry of Health has its ‘Medical Cannabis Unit’. In Australia, its equivalent of the MHRA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, has established its own set of medical cannabis regulations.
None of this fits into Professor O’Callaghan’s model. His career and his income is founded on clinical trials and specifically in childhood epilepsy, regardless of the facts of actual experience in thousands of patients, he is going to do everything he can to prevent its use except on his terms. He has a glaring and outrageous conflict of interest and the failure of any other doctor to point this out simply demonstrates how powerful is the medical establishment and its mafia-like control of our healthcare system.
In his written submission to the Health and Social Care Committee, O’Callaghan had the audacity to attack Professor Mike Barnes, based on a scurrilous article in the tabloid Mail on Sunday, for his “significant financial interests in the cannabis industry”. He also attacks everyone else who has any knowledge or experience in the area, denigrating them as “experts” (in inverted commas). O’Callaghan’s hypocrisy is breathtaking and it is time the sycophantic, uncritical reporting of his opinions was highlighted. I have no doubt that he is an “expert” but he is not the only one and there are paediatric neurologists in Canada, the Netherlands and elsewhere whose knowledge and experience of prescribing cannabis vastly exceeds his own. He needs taking down a peg or two in the interests of children – and now adults – whose care he is interfering with.
Cannabis as medicine has never gone away, despite the best efforts of vested interests and the medical establishment to kill it off. After almost a century of being demonised by governments, the media and every quack on a mission, whether qualified or not, it is here to stay. This doctrine of pharmaceutical drugs, clinical trials and ruthless suppression of empirical knowledge has only been around for that same 100 years. Modern, reductionist medicine has great deal to offer but so does the wisdom of ages and the plants that have long helped us cure, heal and maintain our health. They can co-exist and we must put aside arrogance and self-interest in order best to serve the people.
Peter Reynolds 