drugs | Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘drugs’

Spectacular Spectator Drivel On Cannabis

Melanie Phillips

A Zionist, Labour supporting, Daily Mail journalist – it’s hardly a good start is it? I should have known better than even to start reading her article in The Spectator.

This woman is a dangerous liar and propagandist. Astonishingly, with breathtaking hypocrisy in promoting the most dangerous of drugs, The Spectator describes itself as “Champagne for the brain”.

Here is her article, reproduced without kind permission of The Spectator and my letter to the editor in response.

Yesterday morning, BBC Radio Four’s Today programme broadcast an interview with a professor of neuropharmacology, Roger Pertwee. Prof Pertwee was making an eyebrow-raising suggestion – that cannabis use should be licensed. His argument was as incoherent as it was irresponsible. He maintained, repeatedly, that all he wanted to do was to reduce the harm done by cannabis – from dangers which he appeared to define merely as smoking an adulterated form of the drug, or getting lung cancer from smoking it. So he wanted to restrict it to people whom it ‘wouldn’t harm’. They would use it in other ways than smoking it, so they wouldn’t get cancer. They would go along to their GP who would pronounce them fit enough to use it.

Hello?!?

What about the harm that we know is done by cannabis itself to the brain — to cognition, to memory, to motivation, to personality? What about the tremendous increase in psychosis caused by cannabis use? What about the harm it does to other people in the user’s ambit?

Yes, said Prof Pertwee, indeed, his scheme wouldn’t reduce the harm done by cannabis itself.

What about all those millions more young people who would start using the drug and become addicted and do themselves and other people all that harm?

Yes, stammered Prof Pertwee, that would indeed be an enormous problem with his scheme. But all he wanted to do was, er, to reduce the harm. And when he’d chased his own tail round that pointless circle a few times, he fell back on ‘all I want to do is stimulate discussion’.

In short, it was a stupid and dangerous idea which even in its own terms made no sense whatever. Why on earth was this professor of neuropharmacology spouting such self-evident drivel on the BBC that even he himself had to keep demurring at his own argument?

What the BBC didn’t tell us was that Prof Pertwee was not some dispassionate expert who just happened to breeze into the studio with a cockeyed idea about turning GPs into cannabis pushers.

Prof Pertwee is Director of Pharmacology of GW Pharmaceuticals – which has a special Home Office licence to market a cannabinoid medicine called Sativex which is used to treat certain medical conditions.

His embargoed press release even said of his proposal:

‘I think this might be the way forward, but it might not work… It depends on a private company being willing to produce a branded product’.

But it’s his own company which is best placed to do just that! In other words, the Today programme – as a result of its own lazy and frivolous bias in favour of drug legalisation, which presumably meant it didn’t do due diligence in researching its interviewee because he had the Correct Opinion on drug policy – was played for a sucker by Big Pharma. It was used to give prime air-time to a piece of commercial advocacy which was passed off as a neutral policy discussion. Except that the product being promoted here wasn’t soap powder, but a drug that enslaves.

Who needs cannabis when the Beeb is so dopey already?

—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: letters@spectator.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:20 AM
Subject: Melanie Phillips, The Dopey Beeb, 15th September 2010

Dear Sir,

The disgraceful display of ignorance and propaganda about cannabis by Melanie Phillips cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Her biogtry plumbs new depths of scandalous nonsense.

In the 1930s they used to say that cannabis makes white women promiscuous with black men. Ms Phillips continues on this shameful path of crass misinformation. She needs to do some research before inflicting her ignorance on readers any further.

I agree that Professor Pertwee was incoherent but he is an academic, not a professional communicator. At least he was dispensing facts. Ms Phillips’ diatribe was, to say the very least, economical with the truth.

Cannabis does not harm the brain or damage cognition, memory, motivation or personality – at least no more than breathing oxygen does and a whole lot less than any other recreational drug. The phrase “tremendous increase in psychosis” is just a bare-faced lie and that it harms “other people in the user’s ambit” is the very worst sort of journalistic hogwash.

By all means, Ms Phillips, wallow in your own deluded opinion but don’t use your position to spead such wicked, dangerous nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Authoritarian scaremongers, political cowards and cheap scandal-seeking journalists have been urging scientists to prove that cannabis is harmful for well over 100 years. They haven’t succeeded yet. On the contrary, all the latest research proves that cannabis is a remarkably benign substance yet with some extraordinary medicinal properties. The endocannabinoid system, which was only discovered in 1998 is now known to be fundamental to life and good health. The only source of cannabinoids outside the body is the cannabis plant.

I used to have time for Melanie Phillips and some degree of respect for her opinion. I see now that she is just the same as any tabloid hack who cares not one jot for the truth, merely for cheap sensation and worthless rhetoric.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Posted in Consumerism, Health, Politics, The Media

Tagged with bigotry, cannabis, Champagne, cheap, Daily Mail, dangerous, deluded, diatribe, drugs, economical with the truth, endocannabinoid, hypocrisy, ignorance, Labour, letter to the editor, liar, Melanie Phillips, misinformation, nonsense, propagandist, psychosis, rhetoric, scandalous, scaremonger, The Spectator, worthless, Zionist

Home Office Drugs Strategy Consultation – My Response

with 14 comments

The Home Office has called for responses to its Drugs Strategy Consultation document. See here on the Home Office website.

It is almost universally accepted that “consultation” is a euphemism for “your opinion will be ignored but we want it to look like we listened to you”. This is a classic example of that sort of thinking. Judge for yourself by reading the introduction. It is clear that ministers and civil servants have already made their mind up on many issues just by the way that the questions are phrased.

Nevertheless, this is what passes for democracy in Britain and it is vital that as many people as possible respond. You can do so by post, email or online form. It is all set out on the website. I offer my response here as raw material. Please feel free to copy and use all or part of it as you wish. Just make sure that you do make a submission.

I have answered all the questions where I feel I have something useful to say. It dosn’t matter if you only answer one or two. Please don’t let the Home Office get away with a whitewash. With sufficient responses and future Feedom Of Information requests we will be able to advance the cause of rational and progressive drugs policy.

Question A1: Are there other key aspects of reducing drug use that you feel should be addressed?

* Yes

Please outline any suggestions below

The entire basis of this question is flawed. Prohibition of drug use is a failed strategy as now acknowledged by experts and leaders all over the world. So much of the subject is mired in semantics and prejudice rather than being addressed in a logical and responsible manner with fact and evidence-based policies.

Drug use can never be eliminated. In fact, use of alcohol and tobacco, two of the most dangerous drugs, is legally promoted. Drug misuse is, by definition, to be deplored but unless there is an acceptance of responsible drug use, then corresponding guidance or regulation to prevent misuse cannot work.

The key question, as established by parliament with the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 (MODA), is to how to reduce the harms of drug use. This is the basis of the Act and of the drug classification system which is supposd to indicate the relative harms of drugs based on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse Of Drugs (ACMD).

Regrettably the classification system is now entirely discredited for two principle reasons:

1. Failure to include the two most widely used drugs, alcohol and tobacco

2. Failure to classify drugs on a scientific basis, instead allowing political considerations and opinion to intrude where only facts and evidence should apply

The result is that government messages on drugs are widely regarded as incredible and as propaganda rather than good sense. Young people in particular see the evidence of their own eyes and experience as more useful and credible than government messages, especially in the case of drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy where their relative harmlessness is self-evident. Government campaigns such as Frank are widely ridiculed and both counterproductive and a complete waste of money.

Question A2: Which areas would you like to see prioritised?

Please select as many as apply

* Greater ambition for individual recovery whilst ensuring the crime reduction impact of treatment.
* Actions to tackle drugs should be part of building the “Big Society”.
* A more holistic approach, with drugs issues being assessed and tackled alongside other issues such as alcohol abuse, child protection, mental health, employment and housing.
* Budgets and responsibility devolved wherever possible, with commissioning of services at a local level.
* Budgets and funding streams simplified and outcome based.
* The financial costs of drug misuse reduced.
* None of them.

This is an astonishingly meaningless question, a little like asking “do you approve of motherhood and apple pie?”

It would be foolish to disagree with any of these ideas.

The main area I would like to see prioritised is that drugs strategy, policy, information and education should be fact and evidence based. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both criticised government for failing to implement an evidence-based drugs policy and instead giving more weight to opinion. This is a dreadful indictment of how successive governments have, in fact, contributed to and increased drug harms. It is now a well established and proven truism that drug laws cause more harm than drugs themselves.

I would propose a five point drugs strategy aimed at reducing harms as follows:

1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least six million citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue

I would also propose that the overwhelming response on drug laws to the Your Freedom website should be included in this consultation. Top priority should be given to the massive outcry from the public for the removal of drugs from the criminal law and the more rational, fact and evidence-based regulation.

The question of cannabis needs urgent attention. All experts agree that the harms from its illegality are greater than from the drug itself. According to Home Office figures, there are six million regular users in the UK. Recent research shows that more than 70% of the public want to see some form of legalisation. The laws against cannabis no longer have public support, particularly in the case of medicinal use, yet the cost of unsuccessfully attempting to enforce them amounts to many billions in wasted public expenditure. This is a national scandal of monstrous proportions which must be ended.

Question A3: What do you think has worked well in previous approaches to tackling drug misuse?

There is almost nothing that the government has done that has worked well in tackling drug misuse. On the contrary, almost all government policy has increased the harms caused.

There have been some pilot projects in providing clean, safe environments where opiate addicts have access to a regulated supply and clean needles that have reduced harms.

Question A4: What do you think has NOT worked so well in previous approaches to tackling drug misuse?

Government drugs policy has been a disaster in almost every way, consuming more and more resources to less and less good effect. It has been almost entirely counterproductive and has led to complete distrust of government information, alienation of users from society in general and brought the law into disrepute.

Prohibition has not worked.

Misinformation and propaganda that distributes lies and untruths about the relative harms of drugs has not worked. In fact, it has led to more harms and more deaths.

Criminalising huge numbers of citizens has not worked and has created disaffection and seriously damaged democracy.

Question B1: What are the most effective ways of preventing drug or alcohol misuse?

The only effective way of preventing drug or alcohol misuse is education. This should be accompanied by a system of regulation and controls which is fact and evidence based and has widespread public support.

Question B2: Who (which agencies, organisations and individuals) are best able to prevent drug or alcohol misuse?

The government is entirely discredited when it comes to offering any sort of advice on these subjects because it has a long history of mistakes, misinformation and propaganda. Everyone knows that you can’t trust what the government says about such matters because it almost always places political expediency above the truth.

Schools, teachers, ex-addicts and parents are best able to prevent drug and alcohol misuse. They need fact and evidence-based support and information. The last thing they need is government direction or interference as this is widely seen as unbelieveable and incredible.

Question B3: Which groups (in terms of age, location or vulnerability) should prevention programmes particularly focus on?

There should be no such thing as a “prevention programme”. The most vulnerable group is clearly young people. Tell them not to do something and you immediately increase its appeal. This question demonstrates how utterly out of touch, insensitive and hamstrung is current Home Office thinking.

Education programmes should focus particularly on young people.

Question B4: Which drugs (including alcohol) should prevention programmes focus on?

* Those that cause the most harm
* Those that are most widely used
* All drugs

Please explain your view below

There should be no such thing as a “prevention programme”. Education programmes should cover all drugs but focus on those that cause most harm.

Question B5: How can parents best be supported to prevent young people from misusing drugs or alcohol?

The best way of supporting parents is by creating an environment in which drugs policy is accepted as being rational, sensible and based on facts and evidence rather than propaganda. It is vital that fact and evidence-based information is widely available.

Question B6: How can communities play a more effective role in preventing drug or alcohol misuse?

Communities will naturally come together to prevent drug misuse if we create an environment in which drugs policy is accepted as being rational, sensible and based on facts and evidence rather than propaganda. At present, drug laws and policies create an “us and them” culture where injustice and hypocrisy brings the law into disrepute and alienates people who do not comply.

Question B7: Are there any particular examples of prevention activity that you would like to see used more widely?

There is nothing being done in terms of”prevention activity” that should be continued. Education, based on fact and evidence-based information is the key.

Question B8: What barriers are there to improving drug and alcohol prevention?

The biggest barrier to improving prevention of drug misuse is government policy which is widely understood not to be based on facts and evidence but on political expediency and propaganda. The lack of fact and evidence-based information and education is also a major barrier.

Question C1: When does drug use become problematic?

Drug use becomes problematic when it interferes with people conducting their everyday lives and reaching their full potential or the ability of others to do the same.

Question C2: Do you think the Criminal Justice System should do anything differently when dealing with drug-misusing offenders

The Criminal Justice System should not be involved in dealing with drug misuse at all. This should be a matter for healthcare. Drug misuse in itself should not be a criminal offence.

Where offences are committed while under the influence of drugs, or in order to feed a drug addiction, providing appropriate healthcare has been offered, then drug use should not be a mitigating factor. In such instances, the offender should always be referred for healthcare alongside any sentence.

Question C3: Do you have a view on what factors the Government should take into consideration when deciding to invoke a temporary ban on a new substance?

* Yes

Please explain your views below

The most important factors would be those of scientific fact and evidence to be determined by a strengthened, properly funded and independent Advisory Council On the Misuse Of Drugs or equivalent.

It is most important to consider the “glamourising effect” of banning a substance.

I congratulate the Home Office on its statement that “Possession of a temporarily banned substance for personal use would not be a criminal offence to prevent the unnecessary criminalisation of young people”. This demonstrates a new depth of thinking and intelligence that is very encouraging.

Question C4: What forms of community based accommodation do you think should be considered to rehabilitate drug offenders?

Drug use should not be an offence in itself. Clearly as part of healthcare, community-based accommodation should be available for those suffering from problematic drug use.

Question C5: Where do you think we most need to target enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of drugs?

Enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of drugs are futile unless a legitimate, regulated source of supply is available.

Once a regulated source of supply is available, illicit sources will become less of a problem. Enforcement efforts could then be targeted in a similar way to current policies against illicit supply of alcohol, tobacco and prescription only medicines.

Question C6: What else do you think we can do to keep one step ahead of the changing drugs markets?

The most important thing do do is to end the failed and demonstrably ludicrous policy of prohibition. The solution is a system of fact and evidence-based regulation including a a strengthened, properly funded and independent Advisory Council On the Misuse Of Drugs or equivalent.

Question C7: Which partners – in the public, voluntary and community sectors – would you like to see work together to reduce drug related reoffending in your local area?

What does “drug related reoffending” mean?

Drug use in itself should not be an offence.

Offences related to drugs should be dealt with by healthcare intervention as well as the criminal justice system. If appropriate healthcare has been offered then drugs should not be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Question C8: What results should be paid for or funded?

No comment

Question C9: What measures do you think should be taken to reduce drug supply in prison?

Those prisoners with a drug addiction should have access to healthcare and regulated supply just as any other citizen. Just as in society in general a regulated supply would greatly reduce if not eliminate the problem of illicit supply.

Recreational use of drugs in prison should be strictly controlled. Tobacco is presently allowed but not alcohol.

As an observation, it is tragic to note how existing policies have promoted the use of heroin in prison. Under the drug testing regimes, cannabis can be detected in urine for up to 28 days and so its use has been largely eliminated. However, heroin flushes through the system in less than 48 hours so its use has increased. This is a vivid demonstration of the idiocy of present policies which have led to replacement of a relatively harmless substance with one that has potential to cause great harm.

Question C10 (if applicable): What impact would the measures suggested have on:

* a) offenders?
* b) your local community?

No comment

Question D1: Thinking about the current treatment system, what works well and should be retained?

No comment

Question D2: Thinking about the current treatment system, what is in need of improvement and how might it need to change to promote recovery?

I have no specific expertise in this area but I understand that treatment for problematic cocaine use is extremely limited and in desperate need of investment. While not physically addictive, cocaine and particularly crack cocaine is overwhelmingly compulsive and can lead to violent behaviour. Comparatively, treatment for opiate addicton is well established and understood. More resources need to be put into developing treatments for problematic cocaine use.

Question D3: Are there situations in which drug and alcohol services might be more usefully brought together or are there situations where it is more useful for them to be operated separately?

Services need to be client-centered. Lumping together alcohol, opiate and cocaine services for the convenience of the providers is counterproductive. Someone who drinks too much wine in the evening at home may be deterred from attending a centre where opiate addicts are injecting. Similarly, a high-earning cocaine user may not want to associate with street drinkers.

Question D4: Should there be a greater focus on treating people who use substances other than heroin or crack cocaine, such as powder cocaine and so called legal highs?

* Yes
* No

Please explain your response below

The only rational response to any problematic drug use is to treat it as a health issue, therefore treatment should be available for all substances. The question betrays a worrying naivety as cocaine use can be problematic as powder, crack or both. “Legal highs” is a completely meaningless term which may range from something as harmful as heroin to something as benign as cannabis.

Question D5: Should treating addiction to legal substances, such as prescribed and over-the-counter medicines, be a higher priority?

* Yes
* No
* Don’t know

Please explain your response below

No. The drugs strategy should be about minimising harms not making some moral judgment on people based on one point of view. This is a dreadful suggestion.

Question D6: What role should the Public Health Service have in preventing people using drugs in the first place and how can this link in to other preventative work?

Fact and evidence-based information and education.

Question D7: We want to ensure that we continue to build the skills of the drug treatment and rehabilitation sector to ensure that they are able to meet the needs of those seeking treatment. What more can we do to support this?

Stop wasting money on futile attempts at enforcement of out of date, counterproductive laws. Prohibition is an entirely failed policy and, according to Baroness Meacher in the House Of Lords on 15th June 2010 is costing Britain £19 billion per annum.

Problematic drug use should be dealt with as a health problem. With billions saved from wasted law enforcement costs and additional tax revenue from a regulated supply system, there will be a bonanza of funds available for drug treatment and rehabilitation services.

Question D8: Treatment is only one aspect contributing to abstinence and recovery. What actions can be taken to better link treatment services in to wider support such as housing, employment and supporting offenders?

Stop criminalising drug users, imprisoning them and treating them as offenders. They are not. They are people who choose to use a drug that has arbitrarily been deemed illegal usually for unscientific reasons.

Question D9: How do you believe that commissioners should be held to account for ensuring that outcomes of community-based treatments, for the promotion of reintegration and recovery, as well as reduced health harms, are delivered?

No comment.

Question E1: What interventions can be provided to better support the recovery and reintegration of drug and alcohol dependent offenders returning to communities from prison?

No comment.

Question E2: What interventions could be provided to address any issues commonly facing people dependent on drugs or alcohol in relation to housing?

No comment.

Question E3: How might drug, alcohol and mental health services be more effective in working together to meet the needs of drug or alcohol dependent service users with mental health conditions?

No comment.

Question E4: Do appropriate opportunities exist for the acquisition of skills and training for this group?

No comment

Question E5 Should we be making more of the potential to use the benefit system to offer claimants a choice between:

a) some form of financial benefit sanction, if they do not take action to address their drug or alcohol dependency; or

b) additional support to take such steps, by tailoring the requirements placed upon them as a condition of benefit receipt to assist their recovery (for example temporarily removing the need to seek employment whilst undergoing treatment).

There needs to be a combination of carrot and stick adjusted to individual requirements based on healthcare needs. Those with problematic drug use must not be allowed to fall outside society as that leads to even greater harms. This is why it is crucial that drug use be removed from the criminal law.

Question E6: What if anything could Jobcentre Plus do differently in engaging with this client group to better support recovery?

No comment

Question E7: In your experience, what interventions are most effective in helping this group find employment?

No comment.

Question E8: What particular barriers do this group face when working or looking for employment, and what could be done to address these?

No comment.

Question E9: Based on your experience, how effective are whole family interventions as a way of tackling the harms of substance misuse?

No comment

Question E10: Is enough done to harness the recovery capital of families, partners and friends of people addicted to drugs or alcohol?

Probably not. Once prohibition is ended, with billions saved from wasted law enforcement costs and additional tax revenue from a regulated supply system, there will be a bonanza of funds available for drug treatment and rehabilitation services.

Question E11: Do drug and alcohol services adequately take into account the needs of those clients who have children?

No comment

Question E12: What problems do agencies working with drug or alcohol dependent parents face in trying to protect their children from harm, and what might be done to address any such issues?

No comment

Gender: Male
Age: 45-54
Region: South West
Occupation: Writer

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 15, 2010 at 11:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ACMD, addict, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, alcohol, alienation, Big Society, campaign, cannabis, child protection, civil servant, classification, clean needles, commissioning, counterproductive, crime, democracy, disaffection, discredited, disrepute, distrust, drug harms, drug misuse, drugs, drugs policy, ecstasy, education, employment, evidence-based policy, fact, Frank, Freedom Of Information, good sense, harmlessness, harms, health, holistic, Home Office, Home Office Drugs Strategy Consultation, housing, illegality, incredible, information, law enforcement, legalisation, medicinal, mental health, message, minister, misinformation, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, MoDA, opiate, opinion, oppression, outcry, parents, Parliament, political, possession, prejudice, prevention, problematic, progressive, prohibition, propaganda, public, public expenditure, public opinion, rational, regulation, response, ridiculed, scandal, school, scientific, semantics, social supply, submission, tobacco, treatment, vulnerable, website, whitewash, young people, Your Freedom

Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis – Part 2

with 12 comments

See the original article here.

The Home Office has been denying to me all week that it had changed its story. It claimed that it had said “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” It claimed that cannabis was never included in this statement.

Today it finally owned up. It issued this statement at 5.18pm this evening:

A Home Office spokesperson said:

“There is clear evidence that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are extremely harmful substances.

“There is also clear evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can cause both physical and psychological problems. Even the occasional use of cannabis can be dangerous for people with diseases of the circulatory system, and it can contribute to heart disease and lung cancer.

“In this instance there was a drafting error with the original version of this statement, which was subsequently rectified.”

Does It Look Dangerous To You?

Now, I understand and respect the professional efforts of the Home Office PRs to damp down this story. It just doesn’t wash though does it?

Why did it take nearly two weeks to correct this error?

Why did they try to cover up the error in the first place?

All this from a government department that emphasises how important are its “health and education messages” and that it must not send “the wrong message – to young people in particular.”

Of course, the truth is that the Home Office sends inaccurate and misleading messages about drugs all the time. Everyone, except the Home Office ministers and mandarins, agrees that the present drug classification system is nonsense, that it amounts to nothing less than misinformation. In fact, the Home Office is currently less than seven days away from a judicial review of its political manipulation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Drug Equality Alliance co-founder, Casey Hardison, has taken it upon himself to challenge the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the Administrative Court for its irrational, unfair, and possibly illegal exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from control under the Act.

Even David Cameron agrees that ecstasy should not be a class A drug – see here. The debacle and embarrassing nonsense about the ever-changing classification of cannabis destroyed Alan Johnson’s integrity for good. Young people have been watching the government’s “messages” for years, comparing them to their own experiences and realising that the government talks rot when it comes to drugs. The Home Office is inconsistent, unreliable, contradictory and nothing short of dangerous when it comes to messages about drugs – as they’ve just proved, yet again.

As for the revised statement, there is evidence to show that smoking cannabis can cause the same damage to the cardiovascular system as smoking tobacco, but no one smokes anywhere near the same amount of cannabis as they do tobacco – they’d be asleep! In fact, the very latest research shows that cannabis has an extraordinary protective effect for tobacco smokers and may actually reduce the likelihood of lung cancer. Other recent research has also shown cannabinoids to have remarkable effects in shrinking brain, head, neck and breast cancers.

The Home Office is so far out of date it’s difficult to believe. It still talks sensationally about the dangers of “new stronger strains of cannabis known as skunk”. The truth is that skunk has been the predominant type of cannabis available in the UK for more than 20 years. That’s how up to date the Home Office is. Finally, the “psychological problems” story. Sure, any psychoactive substance has the potential for harm but increasingly there’s evidence to show cannabinoids actually have an anti-psychotic effect. One of the most useful applications of medicinal cannabis is in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

To those who don’t already know the facts, I say simply google your questions. Even the Home Office, much as it might try, has not yet found a way of silencing the truth.

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm

Posted in Consumerism, Health, Politics, The Media

Tagged with ACMD, Administrative Court, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Alan Johnson, alcohol, anti-psychotic, brain, breast, cancer, cannabinoid, cannabis, cardiovascular, Casey Hardison, challenge, circulatory, Class A, classification, cocaine, communities, contradictory, dangerous, David Cameron, debacle, drafting error, drug classification system, Drug Equality Alliance, drugs, ecstasy, education, exclusion, experience, extraordinary, google, harmful, head, health, heart disease, heroin, Home Office, Home Secretary, illegal, inaccurate, inconsistent, integrity, irrational, judicial review, lung cancer, mandarin, manipulation, medicinal cannabis, message, minister, misinformation, misleading, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, neck, nonsense, out of date, political, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, protective, psychoative, psychological, PTSD, sensational, shrink, skunk, smoking, spokesperson, talks rot, tobacco, truth, unfair, unreliable, young people

Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis

with 26 comments

A fortnight ago Sir Ian Gilmore, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, famously denounced drugs prohibition as a failed policy. He said “”Everyone who has looked at this in a serious and sustained way concludes that the present policy of prohibition is not a success.” He then went on to advocate decriminalisation and regulation.

The Home Office immediately issued a statement saying “‘Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This statement was reproduced on the Home Office website and has sat there for the last two weeks in direct contradiction to the governments own scientific advisers. Anyone who has even the smallest knowledge of the subject knows that the idea that cannabis is “extremely harmful” is absurd and a lie.

Within the last day or two the Home Office website has been quietly edited to remove the word cannabis from the statement. See here.

Charades, Fibs And Porkies

This correction is very welcome. However it calls into question the honesty, competence and intelligence of the Home Office and the government’s drugs policy. James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention has been looking increasingly ridiculous in the last few weeks, contradicting his advisers, spouting pre-Reagan “war on drugs” propaganda and conflicting terribly with the wise words of both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, both of whom have called for drug policy reform consistently over the last 10 years. Young James has made himself very unpopular with the country’s six million regular cannabis users and embarrassed the government and the Tory party with his antics.

Whoever was responsible for this smart and very discreet editing, let’s hope they get to have a look at James’ Drugs Strategy consultation document too. It needs some intelligent correction and adjustment as well. See here for more information on what’s really a very silly game of charades, fibs and porkies.

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 1, 2010 at 11:01 am

“The Only Thing Drug Gangs Fear Is Legalisation”. The Independent 26th August 2010

with 2 comments

Superb piece in The Independent today

Superbly argued! Thank you to Johann Hari. Thank you to The Independent for giving the space for this to be heard.

Violence Breeds Violence. The Only Thing Drug Gangs Fear Is Legalisation.

28,000 deaths in Mexico in four years because of drug laws!

It could be the same in the UK. Our new drug strategy is in preparation but the only people applauding the disgraceful sham that is our drug strategy consultation are drug dealers and criminals. James Brokenshire of the Home Office, the man intent on breaking British society, is so backward in his thinking that he makes Alan Johnson look progressive. He is blind to the evidence and the facts, to what is happening in Mexico and elsewhere

There is blood on the hands of cowardly politicians in the UK too. They have shirked this issue, avoided grasping this nettle for too long. Brokenshire can only have been offered as a lamb for sacrifice here – surely? His arguments are too ridiculous, his distortion of science too crass. He is bound to fail if he persists but he will cause death, misery and degradation for thousands. He personally will be responsible for a massive increase in street crime – inevitable if he tightens prohibition. He will not have committed the crimes himself but he will have negligently and recklessly ignored proven current best practice. His attitudes fly in the face of all logic, research and science.

The government is riding roughshod over the massive outcry for drug law reform on the Your Freedom website. Surely, even if public opinion, morality, logic, science, history or common sense won’t convince them, Baroness Meacher’s claim of £19 billion per annum of waste will stir them to action!

Surely, if nothing else, the cash will make the government see sense!

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 26, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation – Sham And Deception

with 20 comments

Today I started to prepare my submission to the Home Office in response to its Drug Strategy consultation. I am sorry to say but it appears to be a complete sham, a deception and merely a sop to public opinion. The strategy is already decided. It is not a Drugs Strategy, it is a Drug Prevention Strategy. It will create death, misery, suffering and crime. It is a disaster in the making

At the beginning of the document it says:

Ministers have agreed the new strategic vision and broad themes for the Drug Strategy which will set the framework for the future delivery of drugs policy…The paper sets out the key objectives and themes of the government’s vision for drugs policy…The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to prevent drug taking, disrupt drug supply, strengthen enforcement and promote drug treatment.

That’s right, despite Cameron’s and Clegg’s progressive statements in the past, nothing is to change. It is an authoritarian, big government, top down approach. It is the precise opposite of the values which The Big Society is supposed to stand for. It’s a stitch up and completely undemocratic. Most important of all, it flies in the face of all the experts, all the experience of the last 30 years and is completely out of step with Europe, America and most of the rest of the world.

In fact the only people who will be supporting this farcical exercise in misinformation will be drug dealers, organised crime drug cartels and countries like China, Singapore and Malaysia that execute people for drug use.

Trying to “prevent drug taking” is like asking King Canute to hold back the tide. It is a completely hopeless and unachievable goal. Man has been using mind-altering substances since the dawn of time and no government or strategy is going to change that. What the new Drugs Strategy should be doing is setting out to regulate drug use in a way that will minimise harms. All the experts agree on this.

Shame on you Cameron! Shame on you Clegg! Only four months in and you’ve hit moral rock bottom already.

Cameron, Clegg and Canute. Three of a kind

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 24, 2010 at 6:49 pm

The Third Milliband Brother?

with 5 comments

James Brokenshire

I have very mixed feelings about young James Brokenshire. He’s a Tory and so am I, so I don’t really want to be too derogatory about him. It’s very difficult though, just keeping a straight face, let alone seeing anything positive. Most difficult of all to ignore is the Milliband in him. I mean, come on, tell me I’m wrong!

One of my more erudite commenters mentioned the phenomenon of Nominative Determinism. According to Wikipedia:

Nominative determinism refers to the theory that a person’s name is given an influential role in reflecting key attributes of his job, profession, or general life. It was a commonly held philosophy in the ancient world.

It’s not just that he looks like a Milliband. It goes much deeper than that. Alright, so George Osborne is right in there as well and I just know I’ve seen at least a dozen other clones. I just can’t quite remember their names or distinguish them. They’re the generation that’s heir to Cameron and Clegg. They’ve gone from graduate to researcher, never had a real job, eternally trapped within the political bubble. You know the type. And yes, our politics and our society are broken, broken because of the sort of policies, attitudes and behaviour that James exhibits.

Of course, I’m on the libertarian side of the party and James is way, way opposite. He comes across as not just a hanger and flogger but a hanger, drawer and quarterer – and that’s just for parking tickets. The trouble is, I fear he’s making such an twit of himself that he’s doing my party a grave disservice. For such a young and youngish man he is a very old, very old reactionary Tory.

James is the new Minister of State for Crime Prevention. Congratulations to him on his appointment at such an early stage in his career. What an important job! He does rather bring to mind all those old jokes about policemen looking like they should still be in short trousers. Does anyone take him seriously?

He’s the government’s front man for the drugs issue. That’s right, it’s not a minister from the Department of Health who deals with drugs. It’s the Home Office! Anyway, even before the current furore, I’d seen James in action in reply to a question about drugs policy. He’s authoritarian, repressive, intransigent and far, far too sure of himself even when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is not someone who believes in “small” government. Like the Millibands and other illiberal socialists he wants close control of our lives. I’m sorry but the boy looks silly and he behaves like an idiot. He’s being taken to pieces all over the internet – ridiculed, abused and condemned. David Cameron, please get rid of him now!

The trouble is that James is trying to come over all tough and spunky but he doesn’t realise that even men of my sons’ ages have seen it all before. Eager young politicians who think they know best when they know nothing have been making similar fools of themselves since time began. To coin a counterfeit phrase, I’d smoked more joints than he’s had hot dinners before there was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye! So many of us had thought through and argued out the drugs issue a hundred times before James even left nursery school.

I can’t really expect a replacement who agrees with me 100% on drugs policy. What I do expect is someone who is credible, sensible, well informed and committed to evidence-based policy and truth. James is none of these. He is making a fool of the government.

What’s really serious is that the man is misguided. He’s flying in the face of the facts and all the experts. Drugs policy has huge impact on our society and we need to move away from our present disastrous and oppressive course. James Brokenshire is the wrong man for the job.

Written by Peter Reynolds

August 23, 2010 at 11:20 pm

Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘drugs’

Spectacular Spectator Drivel On Cannabis

Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis – Part 2

Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis

“The Only Thing Drug Gangs Fear Is Legalisation”. The Independent 26th August 2010

Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation – Sham And Deception

The Third Milliband Brother?

Cameron Stumbles Over Kerb Crawlers

Eenie, Meanie, Minie, Mo – Drugs Policy? That’ll Be Lib Dem!

I Agree With Nick But I’m Voting For Dave

Pages

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email