Letter to Charles Walker MP Broxbourne

Dear Mr Walker,

I understand that I am not a constituent of yours, however, I am writing to you over concerns I have about statements made in the House of Commons by yourself on 9th June 2011, regarding “skunk cannabis”. Beings you have made very inaccurate statements publicly regarding an issue I feel strongly about, I feel it is my duty to correct these. My concern comes from the astonishing number of inaccuracies in your statements. Whether this due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, a refusal to see the truth and only look at the information which suits your prejudices or if you are simply lying, I do not know. Whatever the reason for the untruths spoken, it is unacceptable for someone in your position to have done so. In hope that you take the time to read this letter and I will strongly appreciate it if you do.  

It seems that you are concerned about drug use or in particular cannabis use amongst young people. I understand this and I am certainly against children or young people taking recreational drugs of any kind, however using lies and twisting facts in a propaganda styled attempt to reduce drug use amongst children is not going to work. When statements are made by someone that can be seen to be blatantly inaccurate and even appear as lies, they become stripped of any credibility and one can’t have any confidence in the truth of any further statements made by that person.  This is not the way to tackle drug use amongst young people. For the most part, they know more about drugs than you.

Allow me to list my specific concerns here – I shall do so in the order the statements were made other than in the first instance, which I feel is the most concerning part of your speech:

“it is a lot easier to repair a septum in one’s nose than to repair a brain.”

I presume this is a reference to cocaine use. I can only assume you are being tongue in cheek or intentionally provocative here, but this statement is quite simply disgusting.  I am no expert on this issue but I know cocaine to be highly psychologically addictive and very, very difficult to give up.  Although a lethal dose is unknown (varies dramatically between individuals) it is easily achievable. People die directly from cocaine use. To imply that it is safer for a child, young person or indeed anyone to use cocaine rather than cannabis is a horrific statement to make. I formally request that you publicly retract this statement.

“All too often, that is brought about by an addiction to skunk cannabis”.

Firstly, “skunk cannabis” is one strain of hundreds, if not thousands that are available in the UK. You are by no means the first MP to make this sweeping generalisation. “Skunk” seems to be the term used by MPs and other prohibitionists to describe “modern cannabis”. One only has to go to Google and type “cannabis seeds” and browse a seed vendor to get an idea of how many different strains of cannabis there actually are. These all have varying amounts of THC and CBD, as mentioned by yourself, but also of the other several hundred cannabinoids (active ingredients of the cannabis plant). As you stated, the varying quantities or more importantly, ratios of these cannabinoids is what causes different strains to have different effects. To assume that all or a majority or even a large quantity of the cannabis used in this country is from the Skunk strain is absolutely ludicrous and there is simply no evidence to support that claim. There are two families of cannabis, sativa and indica. With the former generally having a higher THC to CBD ratio, but again, there is no evidence to support that there is more sativa than indica used in this country or that that ratio of use has shifted in either direction.

Secondly, although using cannabis can be psychologically addictive (along with absolutely any other pleasurable activity), cannabis is not physically addictive, in the way that other drugs such as nicotine, alcohol, heroin and caffeine are. To state the words above with regard to a drug strongly implies that it is physically addictive, which is untrue. A physical addiction is of much higher concern than a non-physical one, simply due to the immense withdrawal symptoms incurred by the user – just look at the effects of withdrawal on heroin addicts or alcoholics. These symptoms not only mean the addiction itself is more serious, but also that overcoming that addiction is much more difficult. Fortunately, cannabis users, even those who are psychologically addicted, do not suffer a fate that is anything like as serious as those addicted to heroin or alcohol, for example.

“THC— Tetrahydrocannabinol—content of skunk cannabis is now six times higher than it was in the cannabis of the ’70s and ’80s: 18% compared to 3%.”

This statement has no grounding in fact whatsoever. We have no reliable recorded information on the THC content of the cannabis that was being used around these times or even today for that matter. We would need substantial data to have an idea of which strains, potencies and strengths of cannabis were being used in the ‘70s, ‘80s and now, to be able to get an idea of the averages and distributions etc. It is worth pointing out that higher potency and higher strength cannabis has always existed. We have been cross breeding the plant for thousands of years and it is absurd to assume that suddenly in the last 10 or 20 years we’ve suddenly moved forward leaps and bounds in terms of what THC values can be achieved. Cannabis strains are created and modified through selective breeding, not through genetic modification. Cannabis oil and hash, as well as many strains of raw cannabis have always existed with a THC content above 15%.

“Cannabidiol— content of skunk cannabis, which is the bit of the chemical that counteracted the psychotic effects of THC, has now been removed from the drug.”

This is simply untrue. Although strains of cannabis, including Skunk, have been bread to have lower CBD counts and higher THC to CBD ratios, to my knowledge no strains have been bread with 0% CBD and certainly not the Skunk strain. Also bear in mind that although we have made poor attempts to record THC levels of police seized cannabis in the last 10 years or so, we have not been recording the CBD levels.

“If a youngster smokes skunk cannabis, at best their academic performance will be retarded.” 

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Either that all cannabis smokers could have done better had they not smoked cannabis, or that all people who smoke cannabis are doomed to non-achievement. Whichever way one looks into the statement, it is impossible not to think of the thousands of people who have used cannabis at a young age and gained great achievements academically, including many of our MPs, entrepreneurs, sports stars and entertainers. To say that it can, or may, or even is likely to retard academic performance is fine, but to say that this would be the best possible outcome they can hope for is simply untrue. Again, it appears to be a statement based on anecdote and prejudice rather than solid evidence.

“One in four of us carry a faulty gene for dopamine transmission.”

 This has been disproved by Dr Stanley Zammit, in 2007. If you are going to quote scientific information, be sure to research it first.

“The drug with which we are dealing now is highly toxic and highly dangerous.”

This again is completely false. To state that cannabis is highly toxic has no factual basis whatsoever. The toxic dose of a substance is the amount which is required to kill someone. It is physically impossible due consume a toxic level of cannabis. Even in the famous “brain damage” experiments performed under Presidents Nixon’s authority back in the 1970s, where monkeys were pumped with smoke from the equivalent of 60 joints in the space of 5 minutes, no toxic levels were reached. The brains were starved of oxygen because all they could breathe was cannabis smoke being forced through a gas mask, and brain cells were killed. But no toxic level of drug in take had been reached. Various sources have investigated the toxicity of cannabis to try and determine the toxic or lethal dose and results range from 200 to 600 kilograms consumed at one time. Or £20,000-60,000 worth. I can only assume that you aren’t aware what toxic means, or that you actually believed it possible to reach a toxic dose of cannabis. Either of these is a concern. Did it not occur to you that in 10,000 years of cannabis use not one single death has been attributed to cannabis overdose?

“the problem is that law makers and the clinicians who advise them view cannabis through the prism of their own experiences in the 1970s and 1980s”

Obviously I have stated how inaccurate it is to state that modern cannabis is dramatically different from that of past decades. This statement is an insult to any scientist or professional who has researched this issue. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for example, who advised the government to classify cannabis as a Class C substance, do not simply make decisions based on personal experience of cannabis use, and neither should politicians or law makers. Scientific results are based on studies and obviously reliant upon that data available but the results are not driven by scientists opinions on the drug.

“They need to be aware of the research that shows a strong causal link between skunk cannabis, psychosis and schizophrenia.”

Given how many inaccuracies I have been able to point out on this issue alone, do you really think you’re in a position to be questioning other people’s knowledge of research? Are you aware of the masses of evidence that do not support a causal link? A study by Keele University in 2007 found nothing to support a theory that rising cannabis use in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s led to increases in the incidence of schizophrenia later on, and indeed the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs also supported this view. You do state that you are by no means an expert on the subject, but surely it would have been sensible to look a little further into the issue, rather than just listen to some cherry picked research and anecdotes from one side of the debate. I have stated one study that goes against your train of thought and there are plenty more. However, as a politician I feel it is your responsibility to look at both sides of an argument before committing yourself to a view and voicing it publicly in the House of Commons.

With regard to the four anecdotes, I can completely sympathise with the parents here. But all you have done is given us accounts of schizophrenic children or young adults, who also had a history of cannabis use. Nothing in any of those stories indicated that cannabis had even exacerbated the symptoms of the condition, let alone caused it. In fact, in some the cases you haven’t even mentioned cannabis use. In some cases you point out that psychosis was immediately predicated by cannabis use and then in another you point out that cannabis use started 11 years before the onset of psychosis, yet somehow you still see cannabis as the primary cause.

What I would like to add is that drug use amongst children is an issue and I support the need for it to be addressed. My position is that a legalised, regulated supply system would reduce the availability of cannabis to children. This is why cannabis use amongst children in the Netherlands, for example, is lower than it is here, and why alcohol use amongst children in the UK is lower than that of cannabis use amongst children in the UK. As the saying goes "drug dealers don't ask for ID". Furthermore, where there are concerns about the levels of THC, CBD and other cannabininoids, the product can be quality controlled to ensure that the levels are within certain limits. These are two obvious arguments in favour of legalisation and as a bi-product, we would be taking a multi-billion pound industry out of the hands of criminal gangs (which leads to violence, people trafficking etc) into the taxable area of our economy, creating legitimate jobs and a taxable product.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I do not expect a response to the points raised here, but I hope this letter has given you some further insight as to the factual evidence surrounding cannabis and also the opportunity to look at the issue from a fresh angle. I would, however, appreciate an acknowledgement of the contents of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Rhys Morgan

There's No Such Thing As Science

The science vs religion debate is certainly an interesting one: there's people who say that science and religion go hand in hand and there's people that say they are completely separate. And then there's people who can't really grasp either concept. I get particularly frustrated when I hear people talk about "science" and indeed "religion" as if they are very special and very specific things. Science is simply the attempt to discover things (or truths) about the world and the universe around us. Nothing more and nothing less. There are good ways to do science, whereby you can be confident that your results are accurate, your conclusions are logically derived from your results and your claims are tested and verified further. You should then be able to make predictions based on your claims or theories. Religion, on the other hand, is basically science done wrong. Rather than attempt to discover truths, religion is happy to answer anything which is currently unknown or un-testable with the phrase "god did it", which doesn't explain anything. Further more, religion and the religious have a strong tendency to disregard evidence which does not support or in many cases disproves the religious view, whereas the correct scientific approach would be to either modify the theory or devise a new theory, and recommence testing.

Many claims of religion can be tested and have been proven false. This is why we see religion become less and less relevant, as a source of information both scientifically and morally. As scientific knowledge and technology improves, we are slowly discovering the actual causes of all the "god did it" bits and more often than not they are somewhat incompatible with the majority of explanations found in religious texts. Obviously one has to make a rather general statement there, as the Islamic explanation of our origins will differ from the Buddhist or Catholic explanation. We no longer have to rely on the Garden of Eden or the Noah stories, for example, because we now know that we are an evolved species belonging to a wonderfully giant web of family trees all linked to a common ancestor some many millions of years ago. This not only makes the claims of the aforementioned stories redundant but actually falsifies them and the same can be said for things like the Islamic explanation of foetal development.

Likewise, as we learn more and understand more about human consciousness, brain function and throw in an understanding of evolution, we can disregard the need to use god and the devil to explain people committing atrocities or what morality is. We now know the reasons for altruistic behaviour. We understand that there are complex emotions and instincts within our brain, that have been calved out by evolutionary principles and that these instincts compete with each other to define our behaviour. We understand how our species would not have survived if had we not had a Darwinian impulse towards altruism. We know that there is a specific area of the brain that deals with empathy and if it doesn't develop correctly, a person will not be able act in an empathetic way and can lead them to become what is known as psychotic and that it isn't just a chap with red horns and pointy stick. The gaps left to fill with the "god did it" explanation are becoming fewer and fewer, and father and father apart every day.

One of the few gaps we still have is everyone's favourite question "how did we get here?" If we assume this means not just us as a species or all living things but the universe as a whole, then to say that "science hasn't explained how we got here" is fine to an extent. But religion hasn't either. Science says "something" did it. Religion says "god did it”, usually with a feeble, drastically short sighted explanation which can usually be refuted straight away. Indeed, the how element of the question is almost always flawed and has already been disproved. But even if we let the 6,000 year old earth bits slide, along with the fact that god tends to mention us as the centre of the universe and never mentions any other planets, nor even begins to address even the most basic elements of astronomy, such as the moon and sun and the prospect of other solar systems, and we disregard everything that each religion has gotten completely wrong, then the religious still have a lot of work ahead of them. Even if we decide to accept that "god did it", the question is still there - how did god do it? What did he do? No religion says "well god started with energy at zero mass and then due to xyz, mass was produced and this caused...". This is a point that I find is overlooked in these debates. "God created the heavens and the earth" is certainly not an explanation, by any stretch of the imagination. It tells us nothing.

To say that "science can't explain how we got here" is a completely nonsensical statement. Science CAN explain how we got here, but science HASN'T explained how we got here. Or more importantly, science hasn't yet obtained enough information to explain how we got here. When and if we ever know how we got here, that can only have been due to science. Even if we were to discover a book that happened to conclusively show how the universe began and what existed prior to it, then that would be science. We would read the book, test its claims and upon discovering the claims were true, confirm an answer. That's called scientific investigation.

Global Million Marijauna March

This is a movement I was only made aware of last year, just in time to start organising, as far as I know, the first Million Marijuana March in Cardiff, Wales. The GMM/MMM is a worldwide protest against local and international cannabis prohibition laws, that takes place on the 1st Saturday in May each year. It was originally started in Toronto and New York back in 1999 by a chap named Dana Beal and since then has grown to include over 300 cities annually, stretching from the aforementioned North American cities, as far as Amsterdam, Tokyo, Manila, Copenhagen, Mexico City, Brighton and Dunedin, just to name a handful.


The marches are an important event in the calendar of any pro-cannabis / anti-prohibitionist for many reasons. Firstly, having us all demonstrate together on the same day shows a sense of unity which is often lacking in the cannabis community. One only has to look at the number of like minded groups on Facebook or the rest of the internet to see how many people are singing the same hymns but from different sheets. Just off the top of my head we have The Legalise Cannabis Alliance (recently re-branded as CLEAR), NORML UK, 420 UK, Frank-Dont-Know-Jack, as well as a number of different marijuana tea party groups and events. All of which are perfectly respectable organisations, as far as I know, but it's just a shame they're so scattered. Having a march brings us all together, and not just in an online forum where words get misconstrued. It's a great way of opening doors between groups, and sharing skills, information and let's face it, tactics in what is an ongoing battle. It also lets people know that there is a movement, there are organisations working hard to get the issue legitimised and that they're not alone in the struggle. 


The other unmissable benefit is the impression these events can give to the spectator. Seeing that several hundred or (said wishfully!) several thousand people in your home town feel passionately about the issue to take to the streets and march, chant and rally their way through town may change a lot of minds about the subject, or at the very least get people thinking and talking. This alone in the UK is a step forward.  The nature of the protests can also be a bit of a surprise to people - obviously there's a lot of tie dye, dreadlocks and green smoke, but the chirpy, fun loving, non-anti-social nature of the protest is a breath of fresh air compared to what's seen at a lot of marches and protest.


Following the above, if we here in the UK can make the protests big enough, it pretty much guarantees some media attention and hopefully some words of reason printed or (again, said with a hint of wishfulness) broadcast, from the mouth of someone that has a clue what they're talking about. This can get the "on the fencers" who are crucial in this debate, to understand not only the truth about the alleged harms caused by the plant but also the wider picture of the costs of cannabis prohibition and the harm it causes. These marches do bring media attention in the States and Canada, which in turn leads to TV debates. This is the step forward we're crying out for in this country.


So, take a look at the websites below and find you nearest Million Marijuana March, or if there's nothing close enough, start your own. As the organiser of the Cardiff marches, I have to say it's really not that hard: Start a Facebook group, invite everyone you know and post it on every pro-cannabis group, forum or website you can find. Then, just keep emailing the members to invite their friends etc. You'll be gobsmacked by the number of people getting in touch to offer help. Get some flyers made (you'll no doubt have loads of offers from people willing to design them for you) and get out to club nights and gigs flyering, stick them in pubs, coffeeshops and anywhere you can. My event has grown to almost a thousand in less than a month and I'm no one special! 


This year, organisation for Leicester, Cardiff, and Birmingham is well underway, as well as a 420 event on April 20th in Hyde Park, London, so get involved and get the UK stuck into the struggle!


http://cures-not-wars.org/wordpress/
http://www.globalmarijuanamarch.com/ (this one's currently down, but keep checking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Marijuana_March
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=137598619602596

Birmingham - http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166824986679996
Cardiff - http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=198100900217983
Leicester - http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156375064417650
London 420- http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=149182248470105

Students, Please Pay For Your Own Education

Probably not the most popular blog title you'll ever read, but these are my feelings nonetheless. First of all, let me address the Clegg issue. Yes, of course if a politician does not stick to the promises set out in their manifesto, then that is immoral and they deserve to be discreditted. But let's remember a couple of things: Nick Clegg is not the Prime Minister and is in a coalition with a party and leader who had always openly supported increasing student fees. The coalition government was formed over a few days last May where various policies had to be negotiated and compromised over. Maybe the decision had already been made at this point and should have been brought out in the open then. Either way, we need to stop looking at this in a black and white "Nick Clegg said he'd do this, but now he's in power and he's doing something else", which really isn't the case.

Another myth that needs to be dispelled is the "Poor people can no longer afford to go to university". If anyone took five minutes to look into the policies, it's very clear that this is complete rubbish. The fees are paid via student loans, which are increased to allow for the increased fees and are payed back when the university graduate is earning over £21,000. Thereby meaning that a very poor child still has as much opportunity, from a financial perspective, as a child from a wealthier background. A person's wealth at the point of starting a degree is completely irrelevant.

Now, onto the reasons that I feel that an individual's higher education is not the financial responsibility of the rest of the nation. Certain things in society are obviously the responsibility of all of us: Healthcare, children's education, local and national security etc. But I fail to see why I should bare the financial burden of an 18 year old's biology degree. A biology graduate is likely to be getting a fantastic salary if they work hard and should have no problem paying for the resources that got them there. University is about jobs and money. The argument that we need a better educated population has no weight at all to me. I don't see the value to society of someone getting an economics degree and then choosing to go into a completely unrelated field upon their graduation, because they are no longer interested in persuing a career in a financial field. That's not adding value to society, that's a gross waste of resources. By trade, I work as a trainer - in order for me to gain a recognised qualification, by the way of a CIPD Certificate in Training Practice, I would have to fork out, or get a company to sponsor me to the value of, £15,000. Unsurprisingly this hasn't happened. My father, by trade is a qualified driving instructor. A qualification also costing several thousand pounds. So why do these have to be privately funded up front, even though they are qualifications directly related to industries, that will directly benefit society? I'm not advocating these should be funded publicly, I'm merely drawing comparison. Why does it seem right to publicly fund an English literature degree but not a driving instructors qualification? Oh, because one is "accademic" and takes place at a "university" it is automatically assumed that it is our responsibility?

Apparently the increased fees are going to deter people from going to university. Great! If your commitment to your course of choice was so weak that it could be broken by the fear of slightly lower take home pay when you reach the equivalent of £21,000 per year then I'm glad you didn't wast your time on the course. Find something you genuinely are committed to and do that. Or if you're not sure, wait a while. I don't quite get the point that we need more graduates. We don't have enough jobs for the graduates we have, why do we need more overqualified people working in our callcentres?

I, and I'm sure you, have met countless graduates who are not using their degree at all and end up working an entry level job or going on to study something completely different. Ah, but university is more than just a pathway to gaining a qualification, it's a life experience that alters your perspective blah, blah, blah. Well, I'd quite like the life experience of travelling around the America's for a few months - much cheaper than a degree and will probably give me invaluable experiences, broaden my mind and make me a much more "valuable" member of society. So, essentially adding much more to society than a degree without purpose. So who wants to chip in for my trip? No one, really? Rather pay for Johnny's 3 year Star Wars degree?

Joe Rogan - The American War Machine

Who's right, The Catholics, The Shia Muslims, The Ancient Greeks or The Pagans?

Just a brief conundrum for the believer, mainly fueled by the fact that in recent debates we very often see a non-believer on one side having to debate against, say, a rabbi and a priest. What always pickles me a bit is that the believing side can unite to give their point that "there must be a god because..." yet they're both talking about different gods. So, even if they convince the audience that there is a god, only one of them can be praying to the right god, with the other being deluded and praying to a figment of his imagination. It seems quite arrogant to be confident that your view is correct when some one with an equally passionate unfounded, non-evidenced  belief, held just as deeply as yours, is definitely wrong and deluded. The priest thinks the rabbi is going to hell and vice versa, there's no way around that.

Quite often when I voice my view that there isn't a god, people respond by saying "so you think X million people worldwide who believe in a god are wrong". Well firstly, yes, but secondly, if the Muslims have got it right, then X millions Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Sikhs, Taoists, Aboriginals, Shaminists and Jedis are wrong and the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings and Romans were also wrong, and all of them praying to a god that doesn't exist, yet your god is the right one? To quote Dawkins "You're an atheist to every other god, I'm just taking it one god further".

Or to put it a little more bluntly, a follower of the Catholic faith can say that they know they are right as they have spoken to god and they have felt god etc and there's nothing that can be said to sway that. We call this the Bill O'Reilly response. Somehow this feeling is so strong that it is definitely more legitimate than the feelings of a Shia Muslim, who has also spoken to god and felt god so deeply that he's willing to strap himself to a bomb and blow himself and others up. If that man's delusions can be so deeply held that he's willing to go through that, can you really be sure your god isn't the delusion, or maybe that they're all delusions?

Why Alcohol Is Legal and Cannabis Still Isn't

Beings I'll be preaching to the converted here, I won't go into the historical details of the war on marijuana started in the 20s in the states, but I'll discuss peoples opinions on the matter at the moment.


The general public, for the most part, are rather indifferent to the cannabis situation as it doesn't affect their lives at all, or so they think. They get told it makes people go crazy, may have used cannabis or at least tried it at some point and found it made them feel a little strange, possibly paranoid and it seems logical to them that continued use could lead them to go bananas, just like the Daily Mail said. So, keeping the drug illegal seems to make sense as they have no emotional drive to legalise it and are slightly concerned that increased use would lead to higher incidents of schizophrenia and psychosis. Better to be safe than sorry. One point worth bringing up here is that the psychological debate only arose relatively recently, in comparison to the 70+ years since the drug was made illegal. The obvious question being "well, what reason did they give in the first place then?".  Suffice to say, the reasons given were completely fictitious and the movement for prohibition was fueled by money and racism. This is already very well documented, so I won't go into it here. Most politicians will fall into the description above.


With regard to the psychosis/schizophrenia debate, a very simple point needs to be made: In the last 30years, cannabis use has increased dramatically, as has the strength and availability of the plant. Over the same period of time, incidences of psychotic illness have remained static. If there was a causal link between the two, then surely as cannabis use dramatically increases, we'd see an noticeable increase in incidences of psychotic illness. According to the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs report, 1 in 15,000 cannabis users could develop a psychotic illness (although already having being predisposed) triggered by cannabis use. This basically means that if the entire population smoked cannabis, then during a lifetime there would possibly be 4,000 more people in the UK suffering from a psychotic illness. Based on current usage, it implies that cannabis may trigger the onset of psychotic illness in less than 400 people in the UK in a lifetime or 5 people each year. And it is very important to note that we've had to use the terms "may", "possibly" and "could". We also need to bear in mind that we are talking about triggering these conditions in those already predisposed, so even if cannabis can trigger these conditions, when removed it is likely that something else will trigger the condition during a lifetime.


I have only chosen to address the alleged mental health issues of cannabis here because, quite frankly, it is the only anti-cannabis argument that holds the even the slightest weight. Effects on fertility are acute and short term, in that a person is only affected whilst cannabis is in their blood stream. Essentially it's as if sperm are stoned and they don't do their job properly. As far as cancer is concerned, cannabis is one of the few substances known to man that can cause a tumor to regress. All studies which compare non-smokers, tobacco + cannabis smokers and cannabis alone smokers, show that smokers of tobacco have 20x the chance of developing lung cancer than non-smokers. Smokers of only cannabis have a very slightly, but non statistically reliable, less chance of developing lung cancer. Studies where THC is injected into animal tumors have had a very positive effect on either reversing, halting or slowing the reproduction of cancerous cells. I'm not even going to address the point that cannabis users often smoke with tobacco because if you don't see the irony in that statement, you truly are a lost cause.


Now to alcohol. The public are generally aware of the risks involved with alcohol use. Not the risks that are unproven and still debated, but the very real, understood risk of harm caused by chemical addiction, sclerosis, heart & liver problems etc. 5,000 to 10,000 people die in this country each year directly due to alcohol consumption. That's not to mention the impact it has on casual and domestic violence, accidents, depression, suicide attempts etc.


So, to conclude, the known and very real deaths caused from the use of alcohol each year, by far outweigh the number of predisposed schizophrenics or psychotics whose condition could be triggered early by cannabis use even if EVERY MEMBER OF THE POPULATION SMOKED CANNABIS. Baring in mind, it hasn't been firmly proven that cannabis will trigger either condition - there just appears to be a casual, currently considered non-causal link. There is no comparison between 5,000 deaths and 5 incidences of an onset of psychotic illness. So we're left in a position where the advocate for cannabis prohibition needs to justify why the entire population above the age of 18 should be allowed to use alcohol but no one should be allowed to use cannabis, even though the former is much more dangerous on a case by case basis and also appeals to a wider audience. My basis for the statement on higher demand for alcohol is simply that everyone I know who doesn't smoke marijuana does so because they don't enjoy the feeling, not because of it's legal status. I can think of very few people I know that doen't drink, other than for religious reasons. Also, if you look at the use of cannabis in countries such as the Netherlands where it is declassified for personal use and widely available, the prevalence of use is dramatically lower than that of alcohol. This seems like a logical place to point out that alcohol use was already massively higher than cannabis use when the legalisation "debate" began. It's not as if we started prohibiting the use of certain drugs and suddenly there was a boom in usage of the remaining legal ones. More to the point, tobacco and alcohol were in wide use already, presumably also amongst politicians, so prohibiting them was a non-starter.


So how does the prohibitionist justify the current state of affairs? As far as I can tell it goes back to the same point - that they simply don't enjoy the use of cannabis. Cannabis users are in a minority of around 5-15% of the UK population, depending on where you get your stats from. I haven't looked up alcohol use but I'm going to assume it's somewhere in the 80-90% bracket of the adult population. I can't really work out how the internal thought process would go, possibly something like this:
"Cannabis is bad, make it illegal."
"What about alcohol?"
"um, I like alcohol, keep it legal."
"but it's really dangerous, people are going to die!"
"yeah, but I like it and it's my right to take it."
"but other people like cannabis, don't they have rights?"
"fuck 'em!"


This is why in every public statement from the government, when asked will you discuss or debate the legaslation surrounding cannabis use, usually given with a huge list of reasons for legalisation and comparisons drawn between alcohol use and cannabis use, they can't even respond with a structured point or answer questions directly. The answer is always the same. "Cannabis is a harmful drug and we have no intention of legalising it". No mention of why continued alcohol use is fine, nor any reference to solid evidence showing the harms of cannabis. Gordon Brown springs to mind with his ludicrous statement about "this lethal version of it [cannabis], skunk". From other politicians we sometimes get one of the most ironic statements of all time, which usually goes something like this "We already have enough of a problem with alcohol and tobacco, we don't want to legalise another harmful drug and add to the problem".


Bottom line is, we're left with a bunch of lawmakers who don't enjoy the effects of cannabis, yet know absolutely nothing about it and when given the chance completely discard any evidence, making the decision that the minority of the population who do enjoy the effects of cannabis should not be allowed to use it, because they don't happen to like it. That, my friends, is known as discrimination and would not be tolerated against any other minority.


alcohol information:  http://www.avon.nhs.uk/alcohol/the_facts.htm
ACMD report:  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/acmd-cannabis-report-2008?view=Binary
One example of a study on the link between cannabis use and cancer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
*Incidently, this is the first link that comes up if you google "cannabis cancer study"

US Healthcare Bill

Starting with a bit of a backlog of my gripes, but still a relevant and hot issue where the debate continues over the Atlantic:

I don't really know where to start on the healthcare bill, because I simply do not understand the opposition. Firstly, I can't understand why healthcare was ever a private industry. Making money off curing disease and illness, treating people back to health after accidents and protecting them from future risks doesn't just seem illogical or wrong, it is pure evil. Healthcare, along with local and national security, rescue services and insurance, should be a public industry. Remember it's not simply a situation of "pay for what you need" because there's also a lot of shareholders sat at the top taking a nice cut, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a few of those guys were republican senators and almost all of them republican voters.

When the debate kicked off, I saw a Tory MP on Fox News telling the yanks just how bad the NHS is: waiting times, a sub-standard care etc. Now, all of us here in the UK have our gripes with the NHS - I personally have no issue with the standard of care, yes it could be better but it's FREE, so no matter what ailment I have or accident I get into, the burden of cost is shared by the rest of the nation. If you're not happy to chip in for the cost of treating someone for a condition which is particularly costly, then I'm afraid you are indeed evil. The more important point being the comparison between the NHS waiting times and HAVING NO HEALTHCARE. It seems very strange for someone to say to the 10 - 47 million* Americans that don't have healthcare that they'd be better off without state funded healthcare because it would involve long waiting times. In short, longer waiting times > no healthcare, on an infinite scale. Surely if you're looking at the greater gain to the USA (greatest country in the world apparently), which is the role of congress as far as I understand it, then you need to take the opportunity to maximise the overall health of your population?

The states also spend around twice as much as most other western countries on healthcare, yet according to the World Health Organisations list of countries by healthcare http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html, last updated in 2000, they ranked 37th in the world. That's below France, The UK, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Costa Rica to name just a few. Now I understand that the amount actually spent on healthcare is probably the same as everyone else because of the vast amount of profit earned by the shareholders for the healthcare care and insurance companies, but really, 37th!?

So Obama had to buckle to compromise with the republican majority, but at least things are now moving forward so that a vast number of Americans now have healthcare cover. That's right, for the greatest country in the world it's a massive step forward when everyone has healthcare. I wish they understood quite how crazy that sounds to the rest of the western world.

*The number without healthcare is largely debatable, as many of the usually quoted 47 million are citizens and many can afford it but opt out. However "can afford but opt out" is an interesting phrase as a lot of people may have theoretically been able to afford healthcare but had to endure a much lower standard of living.