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.