Posts Tagged ‘misinformation’
This Man Isn’t A Scientist. He’s A Prohibition Propagandist.
Sitting alongside him at his press conference “Cannabis Can Hasten Psychosis”, who did Dr Large have to lend him support?
Cannabis Preventer
Jan Copeland, the director of the Australian National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre.
What does that tell you?
This isn’t anything to do with science. It’s about advancing the prohibitionist agenda – and, of course, is closely connected to Dr Large’s future funding and career path. See here for the unedited rushes from this little conspiracy.
His big pitch was “The results of this study confirm the need for a renewed public health warning about the potential for cannabis use to bring on psychotic illness.”
Absolute rot. The study confirmed nothing of the sort. All it consisted of was a recalculation of data from 83 previous studies. It’s all correlation and association. There’s no evidence of causation whatsoever. There was absolutely nothing new in it at all and to claim there is, is simply a lie. Of course, the mindless, desperate and eager comics like the Daily Mail have almost wet themselves with excitement over it.
This is a very typical example of the misinformation, propaganda and distortion of science put out by the prohibitionists. It is important to understand the way they work. They have been doing this now for nearly 100 years, using the latest propaganda techniques every time.
In this “meta-analysis”, as Dr Large pretentiously calls it, what he doesn’t tell you is that all the subjects already had a predisposition towards psychosis (usually by genetics) and included tobacco and “other psychoactive substance users”. That means any of the approximately 600 ingredients found in cigarettes such as ammonia, various ethyls, and any of dozens of acids and carcinogens could have distorted the findings. Similarly, and not addressed by the study’s authors, is the fact that the cannabis users, in many cases, were also cocaine, heroine, amphetamine or other drug users.
The study claims that “…schizophrenia caused by cannabis starts earlier than schizophrenia with other causes.” but it fails to consider how many of the subjects were in fact, self-medicating. The authors don’t even consider whether cannabis causes mental illness or if people with mental illness have a higher rate of using cannabis. Other evidence shows that self-medicating with cannabis is widespread and that over 90% of diagnosed schizophrenics smoke cigarettes – but nobody is claiming tobacco causes schizophrenia.
It’s hogwash.
Legalise Cannabis Alliance Votes To Return To Politics
Last week the LCA announced the result of its membership ballot – that it would re-register as a political party and elect a leader.
Stuart Warwick
Two candidates are standing for the leadership: Stuart Warwick and myself. Voting will close on 14th February 2011 and the result will be announced a few days later.
At a meeting last Sunday, a new management committee was formed consisting of:
Don Barnard, PR & Political Liaison
Alun Buffry, Treasurer & Coordinator
Mark Palmer, IT & Media Development
Peter Reynolds, Speaker
Janice Wells, Secretary
Two official spokespersons were appointed:
Chris Baldwin
Stuart Warwick
Alun Buffry, co-founder of the LCA, said:
“In 2006, LCA members voted to de-register as a political party in the mistaken belief that the Liberal Democrats and Greens would take up the complex issues surrounding the cannabis plant. Sadly that did not happen. Now, LCA members have voted to re-register as a political party. The LCA will once again offer voters a platform to register their discontent over the unjust prosecution of victimless users of cannabis.”
Don Barnard added:
“I am over the moon that the membership has voted to get politically active again. I look forward to raising concerns about the dubious reasons for complete prohibition of the cannabis plant with government and parliamentarians.”
For myself, I am excited to be involved in the management committee and the leadership election. Whatever the outcome, I will do my utmost to represent the LCA, its members and all cannabis users to the best of my ability. It is time that the discrimination against millions of British citizens who choose to use cannabis was put back on the political agenda. No longer can the misinformation and false propaganda put out by government ministers go unchallenged.
Broken Promises. Broken Britain. Brokenshire.
Mad? Bad? Or both?
The most important principle espoused by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the election campaign was fairness. They promised us that their government would be fair and by extension that the policies it pursued would be based on facts and evidence, not on prejudice, misinformation or distortion by vested interests.
This promise is broken and in the most crass, blatant and disgraceful fashion by the attempt to remove scientists from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Never has a more corrupt intent been revealed by a British government. Never has a minister, James Brokenshire, demonstrated his intent to misinform, deceive and lie more clearly. Dr Evan Harris, the former LibDem shadow science and health minister, explains the intricacies of this attempt to subvert the law here.
The Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 was progressive legislation in that it created the ACMD and required government to seek its expert scientific advice before criminalising the use of drugs. Because, increasingly, the government does not like the ACMD’s advice, it is now seeking to remove the Act’s requirement that there must be scientists on the council. Is it possible to conceive of a more ridiculous or corrupt idea?
In fact, the government takes no notice of the ACMD anyway. When ministers wanted to ban mephedrone earlier in the year they ordered the council to provide the advice that they wanted and banned it despite there being almost no evidence at all. More members of the ACMD then resigned and the Home Office is now trying to recruit replacements. That may be the truth of what is happening here. The government simply can’t find scientists prepared to sit on the council. I wonder why?
James Brokenshire says: “Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the government’s approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true.
This is simply a bald faced lie and self-evidently so. If scientific advice is critical, why does he wish to remove the obligation to have it available?
James Brokenshire regularly speaks untruths or dissembles on behalf of the government. The facts prove that beyond doubt and his reputation is well established. For instance, the Home Office claims that there are no medicinal benefits in herbal cannabis and that this is based on advice from the ACMD. No such advice has ever been given. Furthermore, Professor Les Iversen, present chair of the ACMD is also a founder council member of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register (BMCR) and next week lectures on the subject “Bringing Cannabis Back into the Medicine Cabinet”
James Brokenshire is in the vanguard of this contemptible and corrupt behaviour. He may be put forward as cannon fodder by more senior ministers because the nonsense he speaks and the positions he takes are so manifestly ridiculous. When the truth is out and his shame is revealed he will easily be dismissed by Theresa May. If, as Minister for Crime Prevention, he had any real interest in preventing crime he would be resisiting this attempt to subvert the law.
The British Medicinal Cannabis Register And Your Security
Apart from the misinformation and propaganda of government, there are two reasons why cannabis law reformers have met with little success in Britain.
The first is a lack of factual information about who uses cannabis, how and for what reasons. The second is a terrible record of disunity, squabbling and petty power games amongst campaigners.
My fervent hope is that the creation of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register (BMCR) will help to solve the first, at least for medicinal users. The second though may prove more difficult.
The BMCR has attracted the endorsement of a number of eminent individuals. Council members include people whose reputation is beyond reproach as well as medicinal users who, by definition, are described as criminals. There have already been scurrilous attacks on the integrity of some council members and cowardly abuse, anonymous or in disguise, from those who have a different agenda.
Regrettably, a well known campaigner with an honourable and courageous record in assisting medicinal users, has resigned from the council over concerns about data security. While he is a man of great integrity, the web site with which he is associated has hosted a series of paranoid and scaremongering attacks on the BMCR. The site is well known as a forum for cannabis growers who clearly have good reason to be concerned about their security.
The BMCR issued the following guidance:
Your Security
The purpose of the BMCR is to build a database of factual information. For that data to have any value it must be validated. Cannabis remains illegal in Britain so there will always be some danger in contributing to any website or source of information, even if you do so anonymously or under a pseudonym.
After careful consideration the BMCR has concluded that the minimum requirement for data to be validated is a name, a part post code and a verifiable email address. The name and postcode cannot be verified so there is nothing to stop you using an alias.
Clearly, the information about post code, condition(s) and method(s) of use is only of any value if it is truthful. All data will be stored on encrypted servers and/or storage devices and will not be released to anyone voluntarily. However, you must decide for yourself the balance between providing information and your own security.
Ultimately, medicinal users must decide for themselves whether they want to stand up and be counted or not. Personally, I put my name loud and proud alongside the BMCR and I will defend and keep confidential any information entrusted to me to the ultimate. I know the same goes for all those involved.
The BMCR website is at www.bmcr.org.uk.
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
Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis – Part 2
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.
“Outrageous Scaremongering” Over Cannabis
Last October, 36-year old Julie Ryan was found dead in bed by her three children, now aged 14, 13 and 8. At a coroner’s inquest in Oldham last week, pathologist Dr Sami Titi said “The direct cause of her death was cardiac arrest because of a history of smoking cannabis”.
Dr Sami Titi
Julie’s family claims that this is not true, that Julie’s cannabis use has been blamed because the Royal Oldham hospital failed to treat her properly. In Britain, there has only been one previous occasion when a death has been attributed to cannabis. In 2004, Lee Maisey, 36 of Pembrokeshire, who smoked half a dozen “joints” a day, was found dead on his living room floor after complaining of a headache.
At the inquest in Oldham, the coroner, Simon Nelson, was said to be surprised at the pathologist’s story and questioned him closely. Dr Titi insisted that “smoking of cannabis is well known to have a negative impact on the heart and can cause heart attacks in young people”. The coroner said that in 15 years he had never heard a pathologist so confident that cannabis could be fatal. He recorded a narrative verdict of “death from cardiovascular complications induced by cannabis smoking”.
Coroner Simon Nelson
Julie’s brother, Kevin Ryan, says that the pathologist’s remarks are “outrageous scaremongering”. Her mother, Linda, is bewildered by events. As planned, Julie’s children had stayed with her while the inquest was taking place. Now they have returned home to the furore of this extraordinary verdict and are extremely distressed.
Julie had visited the Royal Oldham hospital several times complaining of chest pains but been sent away with a diagnosis of heartburn. The post mortem examination revealed she had a severely enlarged heart and had suffered a previous heart attack which had not been diagnosed. Family sources said “It’s a cover up. Cannabis doesn’t kill. They made a big mistake.” Mary Burrows, Julie’s cousin, who was very close to her, said she preferred to smoke cannabis rather than have a drink and that “she was a wonderful mother and her kids miss her so much”.
Dr Mark Eckersley, a local Manchester doctor, said “More and more pressure is being piled on medical professionals to propagate this type of untruth by the powers that be.” He said doctors need to maintain credibility with the community and that “this type of nonsense makes my blood boil”.
A spokesman for the Royal Oldham hospital said “Miss Ryan died from a heart attack and cardiovascular problems. Our thoughts and sympathy go to her family.”
On 2nd November in California, Proposition 19 is expected to permit the personal use of cannabis for the state’s 28 million adults. As a result, new tax revenues of $1.4 billion are anticipated, up to 110,000 new jobs and a boost of up to $18 billion to the state’s economy from spin-offs such as coffee shops and tourism.
In America, any health concerns about the plant are far outweighed by health benefits. Medical cannabis is already regulated in 14 states with another 12 in the planning stage. In Britain, Sativex, a whole plant extract of cannabis, was recently authorised as a treatment for MS. It costs about eight times what medical cannabis costs in America, Holland, Spain, Israel and very shortly Germany, where there is a fully regulated supply chain. In Britain, despite a House Of Lords Scientific Committee recommendation, the government refuses to consider such a move. Many patients whose doctors have prescribed Sativex have been denied funding from their health authority. In some of these cases, criminal prosecutions have been brought against them for cultivating their own plants.
A spokesman for GW Pharmaceuticals, developers of Sativex, said “The therapeutic ratio for cannabis is so high that it is virtually impossible to ingest a fatal dose”.
Prof. David Nutt
Professor David Nutt was sacked as chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last year after claiming that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. His successor, Professor Les Iversen, also maintains that cannabis has been “incorrectly” called dangerous and says it is one of the “safer recreational drugs”.
On Friday, Professor Nutt said cannabis “seems to cause much less harm than alcohol and that banning the plant is “unjust and therefore undemocratic”. He added: “The previous government’s policy to deter cannabis use by forceful policing increased convictions for cannabis possession from 88,000 in 2004 to 160,000 in 2008. As well as ruining many lives through getting a criminal record, this added massive costs to taxpayers in extra policing and prison costs.”
Prof. Les Iversen
Dr Sami Titi, the pathologist, was unavailable for comment and did not respond to emails. It has not been possible to identify any scientific support for his conclusions.
Julie Ryan’s family is left bemused and uncertain by this verdict. Three children are without a mother and confused about contradictory messages. The 13 year old has been posting on websites about her concerns. Meanwhile, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have criticised the government for basing drugs policy on opinion rather than evidence. James Brokenshire, the Home Office Minister, in direct contradiction to his own advisers, continues with the story that cannabis is “extremely harmful”.
James Brokenshire
Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg are on record over the last 10 years as consistently calling for reform in drug policy. The Your Freedom website has been overwhelmed with requests for evidence based regulation of drugs and the legalisation of cannabis but the government is riding roughshod over this public outcry. A consultation document on a new drugs strategy was issued just over a week ago but it seems meaningless and dishonest as all the big decisions have already been taken. Cannabis campaigners, working on behalf of six million regular users in the UK, are outraged at what they see as hypocrisy, misinformation and regressive government action.
Dr Mark Eckersley, exasperated and concerned at the pathologist’s evidence said “This is simply not true. Hearing this story is more likely to cause a heart attack than the ingestion of any cannabinoid”.
Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation
All over the BBC this morning is the story that addicts may have their benefits withdrawn if they refuse treatment. This, apparently, is a proposal included in the Home Office’s new Drug Strategy consultation document.
Where is this document? It’s not on the Home Office website. That’s a bit strange for something that purports to be about consulting with the public isn’t it?
I had to phone the Home Office press office to get a copy. I shouldn’t have to be doing this for the government but you can download it here:
Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation Document
Theresa May and James Brokenshire, the ministers responsible for this, should remember that they are not in office to preserve the status quo or cook up policies between themselves based on the misinformation that the Home Office currently promotes. Their first responsiblity after their duty to the Queen is to the public. Consultation is not something they should pay lip service to, nor is it something they can pick or choose. It should determine their actions.
As part of this consultation, the Home Office should take into account the tens of thousands of people who have used the Your Freedom website to call for relaxation in the drug laws and particularly the legalisation of cannabis.
I urge everybody with any interest in the drugs issue to download, complete and return the consultation document. It’s presented as a Q&A form. I also suggest that you keep a copy and send a copy to your MP. Regrettably the Home Office doesn’t have a good record on keeping track of what the public says to it. It loses a lot of things.
On the face of it, I support the idea that if you’re a heroin, cocaine, alcohol or prescription drug addict and you’re offered treatment but refuse it then you shouldn’t be able to live on benefits. That seems entirely just. The danger is that just as current drug laws drive addicts to crime and prostitution so will this. This is progress though. There has to be personal responsibility but also some flexibility to ensure this doesn’t become another self-defeating policy. Most important of all, possession of drugs for personal use and/or social supply must be taken out of the criminal law.
The other headline grabbing proposal is that the government should be able to impose a temporary 12 month ban on “new substances”. This is designed to tackle the danger of “legal highs” – a danger mainly of the government’s own making because of its policy of prohibition. There is a real glimmer of hope and intelligence here though because “Possession of a temporarily banned substance for personal use would not be a criminal offence to prevent the unnecessary criminalisation of young people”. I applaud this. It shows that it is possible to get common sense from the Home Office. There is hope yet!
***UPDATE***
As I go to press (oh, alright, as my finger hovers over the “publish” button), the consultation document has become available on the Home Office website. A little tardy but better late than never.
You can respond to this consultation until 30th September 2010. Make sure you do.
Peter Reynolds 