Legalise cannabis oil?

[Phanerothyme 12]

Cannabis oil row: Boy has epilepsy medication returned. Billy Caldwell, 12, received the oil after doctors made clear it was a "medical emergency".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44507135

 

Is this the first step towards changing our prehistoric drugs laws?

 

Canabis is legal in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Isreal, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Spain and Uruguay.

 

No.

 

Cannabis still causes psychosis, predominantly in the people who've never used it.

 

Billy Caldwell, and Alfie Dingley, and all the other children who have come to rely on full spectrum cannabis oil to alleviate a wide variety of 'drug resistant' seizures - many of which are life threatening - have been granted a home office exception to the law on a case by case basis. At the moment.

 

The government is in a predicament. On the one hand it has placed cannabis as a schedule 1, class b drug. No therapeutic value, and on the same harm index as amphetamine. On the other hand, it has licenced one company to grow and produce a full spectrum cannabis extract called Sativex, and a high CBD extract, Epidiolex.

 

Sativex is licenced in the UK for the treatment of muscle spasticity. But GW pharma put a very high price tag on it, so the advice from NICE is not to use it, "because it is not a cost effective treatment."

 

Doctors in the UK are prevented from prescribing these legal, uk origin, cannabis extracts however.

 

To further the hypocrisy, Home Office minister Victoria Atkins and Theresa May both have husbands who will profit handsomely from pharmaceutical cannabis.

 

Compounding the irony, the UK is now the worlds largest exporter of state sanctioned cannabis:

 

"Ninety five tonnes of marijuana was produced in the UK in 2016 for medicinal and scientific use, accounting for 44.9 per cent of the world total, its International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) found.

 

The UK is also the largest exporter of the drug, with 2.1 tonnes exported in 2016 – roughly 70 per cent of the world’s total."

 

What no-one wants you to know is that "Sativex" and home made cannabis extract are extremely similar in many respects, except for price.

 

Anyone with a greenhouse could grow their own medicine, and the collective body of knowledge of dosages, strains and administration methods is sufficient for them to confidently use it.

 

Not a prospect relished by many governments.

 

Canada, of course, has now legalised cannabis for medical and recreational purposes. Let's all watch closely and see if we can learn something... We share a Queen, on our banknotes at least...

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2018 at 23:52 ----------

 

Apparently, or though I'm not sure they actually extract and purify specific compounds out of it.

 

The lad in the news was treated with cannabis oil, I assume they just mulch the stuff up, extract and clean the oil and use that??

 

I think they redissolve it by weight into a known amount of alcohol to make dosing easier and make it consistent.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Phanerothyme

[apelike 10]

Cannabis still causes psychosis, predominantly in the people who've never used it.

 

No, some types of cannabis can cause psychosis in some people, but that may be because those people possibly (mainly young) are subject to psychosis anyway. The high THC strains (skunk) which are currently the norm differ widely from the type of cannabis going about in the 60s and 70s. Then it was more balanced with a medium THC content and a larger amount of CBD than now thus giving a euphoric and more of a trippy high. That is the cannabis that most smoked back then and popularised by the arty types, painters, writers, musicians etc. That cannabis did not give you paranoia or psychosis in first time users, it gave you the giggles instead...

[Cyclone 10]

When the UK tried to relax the 'criminality' on personal possession of cannabis through a change its classification, much confusion occurred.

There is a misunderstanding between the much needed decriminalization of cannabis offences, particularly of young offenders, and 'legalization' which is the repeal of laws.

 

I would think a majority would be in favour of a straightforward decriminalization of cannabis possession, and most other illegal drugs amongst the young.

The concern many have is the inability of the supporters of change to come up with any sensible and consistent approach. Instead we have 'unilateral abolitionists' and a spectrum of 'controlled use' proposers all wearing the same meaningless 'legalization' T-shirt, seeking very different outcomes.

 

We need a workable alternative not misunderstood slogans.

 

It was made class C for a period, I don't know what the stats are regarding offending or so on for that period, but it was changed back for moralistic and electioneering reasons, not due to confusion nor due to any increase in it's use.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2018 at 08:20 ----------

 

Is there an equivalent of the breathalyser to detect cannabis use by drivers?

 

Yes, there's a roadside test for multiple drugs now.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2018 at 08:23 ----------

 

No.

 

I disagree, I think it might actually be the first step towards full decriminalisation and regulation.

More and more senior political and law enforcement personnel are calling for this, eventually it will become impossible to avoid doing it.

[geared 311]

Not a breath test but a spit test, so a spitalyser could be the new name lol

 

It's more of a wipe from the shows you see on telly.

 

Wipealyser??? humm, maybe not?

[Annie Bynnol 612]

It was made class C for a period, I don't know what the stats are regarding offending or so on for that period, but it was changed back for moralistic and electioneering reasons, not due to confusion nor due to any increase in it's use.

 

Lack of knowledge and opinion does not make a persuasive argument.

 

Statistics.

Offending rates have been decreasing since 1989.

Use for all drugs amongst 16-24 has decreased dramatically in that period.

Cannabis strength has increased significantly.

Hospital admissions and GP referrals due to cannabis has increased.

Several private clinics now offer treatment for cannabis misuse.

 

Electioneering.

In January 2004 a Labour government proposed a B to special C* classification change- just before a General Election.

ACMD review of the change noted the confusion amongst police and users and recommended increase in education to overcome this.

In May 2008 a Labour government proposed a C(special*) classification change- two years before the election. There was evidence that cannabis was getting stronger and links between cannabis strength and mental illness.

 

*The confusion

Cannabis was supposed to become Class C drug.

Due to changes in the Bill, unlike other class C drugs powers of arrest were retained.

[Cyclone 10]

26th Jan 2009 - Cannabis reclassified as class B

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7850342.stm

 

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith decided to reclassify cannabis despite an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs' review - commissioned by Gordon Brown - saying it should remain Class C.

That's an electioneering and moralistic change, not an evidence lead policy.

 

The Conservatives have said the government's reversal of its earlier decision showed the downgrading of cannabis had been a mistake.

Not an evidence lead argument.

 

It was made class C (not just proposed)

Reclassification had the support of a plurality of the public, with surveys at the time finding that 49% of British adults supported cannabis decriminalisation, 36% were against, and 15% were undecided.[3] The transfer eventually happened in January 2004, after class C penalties for distribution had been stiffened.

in 2004 with broad public support.

 

Why it should be class C, or indeed decriminalised and controlled like alcohol and tobacco.

You will note that, after a most careful scrutiny of the totality of the available

evidence, the majority of the Council’s members consider – based on its

harmfulness to individuals and society – that cannabis should remain a Class C

substance. It is judged that the harmfulness of cannabis more closely equates

with other Class C substances than with those currently classified as Class B.

From a report by the advisory council on misuse of drugs.

 

And regarding levels of usage

http://www.russellwebster.com/uk-drug-report-2017/

Usage levels were falling whilst it was class C, they continued to fall with no change in rate when it was reclassified back to class B. The precise legality appears to have no impact on the level of use.

 

I'm struggling to find any statistics for pre 2004 to verify that reclassification to C didn't cause a rise in use, but that's fully what I expect to find. I did find this though.

 

Research has suggested that the number of hospital admissions for psychosis caused by cannabis use started to decline after its classification was lowered to Class C in 2004, but started to increase again after it went back up to a Class B drug in 2009. This calls into question the decision to reclassify in 2009, which was at the time justified by the purported link between cannabis and schizophrenia.

 

And this

 

Steve Rolles, senior policy analyst for Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a charitable think-tank campaigning for drug control and regulation rather than prohibition, told me: "There is no evidence from the admissions data to support the emotive political and media discourse used to justify the reclassification back to (Class) B. This is hardly surprising as drug policy has rarely been about science – it's far more often about sensationalist media headlines and populist political posturing. Jacqui Smith should have listened to the ACMD."

Like I said, it wasn't an evidence lead policy, it was electioneering and moralistic.

 

Here we go

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_239810_EN_Nicola%20Singleton%20-%20Cannabis%20trends%20in%20the%20UK.pdf

Reclassification to C did NOT cause any alteration to the downward trend to usage patterns. Nor did reclassification back to B.

 

QED

[Annie Bynnol 612]

Like I said, it wasn't an evidence lead policy, it was electioneering and moralistic.

 

Except there was no election.

[alchresearch 214]

Except there was no election.

 

Tony Blair stood down as prime minister after 10 years in June 2007, and was succeeded by chancellor Gordon Brown. That autumn, the national media reported that an imminent general election was likely, putting all polling organisations, the press and political parties on an election footing,

 

Just like Diane Abbot recently announcing that she'd make cannabis oil legal if Labour won. There's no election on the horizon (we hope) but it doesn't stop them electioneering some years before.

[Cyclone 10]

Except there was no election.

 

6th May 2010, just 16 months later.

 

And is "there was no election" what your "Lack of knowledge and opinion does not make a persuasive argument" has been reduced to? Nit picking over a term used to indicate politicians doing things for political reasons instead of evidence lead or with the best interests of the country at heart.

I thought better of you than that.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Cyclone

[Annie Bynnol 612]

6th May 2010, just 16 months later.

 

And is "there was no election" what your "Lack of knowledge and opinion does not make a persuasive argument" has been reduced to? Nit picking over a term used to indicate politicians doing things for political reasons instead of evidence lead or with the best interests of the country at heart.

I thought better of you than that.

 

Still no evidence of election influence.

[Halibut 12]

We need a workable alternative not misunderstood slogans.

 

And we have a number of workable models from around the world to choose from. What's required is a government with the balls to do the right thing.

[Phanerothyme 12]

No, some types of cannabis can cause psychosis in some people, but that may be because those people possibly (mainly young) are subject to psychosis anyway. The high THC strains (skunk) which are currently the norm differ widely from the type of cannabis going about in the 60s and 70s. Then it was more balanced with a medium THC content and a larger amount of CBD than now thus giving a euphoric and more of a trippy high. That is the cannabis that most smoked back then and popularised by the arty types, painters, writers, musicians etc. That cannabis did not give you paranoia or psychosis in first time users, it gave you the giggles instead...

Jesus Wept, Man!

 

 

Read what I wrote, more carefully this time.

 

It's a joke, you may have seen one before?