Clear advice is more important in the cannabis debate
Jacqui Smith’s decision to upgrade cannabis to Class B from Class C is pure political posturing designed to persuade Middle England that the Government is tough on drugs. Classification is irrelevant. How many 14 year olds, about to puff on their first joint, will have any idea whether the drug they are ingesting is class C or B or what it means?
Far more helpful to parents and to those young people bent on trying the drug would be clear advice about how to minimise the risks. Cannabis is Britain’s most popular illegal drug used by 2.5 million people a year. Threatening users with an increase in the maximum prison sentence from two years (under Class C) to five years (Class B) for possession will not stop them experimenting.
While warning young people about the dangers, we should also advise them of practical measures they can take to reduce the harm. First while tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active substance in cannabis that gives the “high”, may trigger psychosis in vulnerable people, there are suggestions that the presence of cannabidiol can counter the effect, rendering the drug safer. Skunk, which accounts for 80 per cent of the market, contains very little cannabidiol (less than 0.1 per cent), as does herbal cannabis (grass) but resin (hash) contains more (3.5 per cent). This is far from proven, but if you are determined to use cannabis it may make sense to stick to hash, rather than skunk or grass.
Second, skunk (average THC content 16.1 per cent) is much stronger than resin (5.9 per cent) or herbal (8.3 per cent). So when smoking skunk, be aware how strong it is and inhale less – just as you would approach a bottle of whisky with more respect than a pint of beer.
Third, there is some suggestion that people who experience feelings of paranoia when they first smoke cannabis may be at increased risk of psychosis. This is far from proven and it may turn out that the reverse is true. But if you get paranoid feelings when you smoke then it may be wise to heed the warnings and desist.
We cannot stop people trying cannabis and exhortations to refuse it are bound to fall on deaf ears. What we can and should do is try to reduce the harm it causes. More research on each of the above items is urgently needed – rather than making empty political gestures this is what the government should be backing.
acmd should now look at alcahol and report back,
domestic/street violence,liver failure 60,000 deaths per year,hospitals 60% of a and e on fri/saturday nights is alcahol related ,children as young as 6 going too hospital with alcahol poisoning,you can go on and on!
most police hours are spent dealing with alcahol..
do people realise you have more chance off getting mental illness from alcahol than cannabis/skunk?
200/400% chance(increase)cannabis
600/800% chance(increase)alcahol
what annoys me they give out figures in % too scare people,they should mention that your chance of a mental illness from this or that is low in the first place..
does everyone now avoid holland because all the mad men over there....i enjoy alcahol and a smoke and i will carry on as normal....if it was good enough for queen victoria and carl sagan then it's good enough for me! this labour gov has too be booted out,and politics has to change....
Posted by: chris | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 01:37 PM
@chris:
Wasn't it more like 40% increase for the chance of getting a mental illness with cannabis? That was at least the number i saw in all the newspapers. 800% for alcohol is correct though as far as i know.
I mean, most people who abstain from alcohol do it because they are afraid of liver damage, dying brain cells, alcoholism and so on. But i NEVER heard about people not drinking alcohol because of "mental illness". Even though the chance of getting mentally ill is significantly higher with alcohol than with cannabis.
The prohibitionists tryed so hard to find the negative sideeffects of cannabis, and now they are blown totally out of proportion. They are trying so hard to find reasons to keep cannabis illegal.
Disgusting.
Posted by: N. Esser | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 01:51 PM
This advice doesn't seem terribly sensible to me. Is the author aware of the contamination found in most hash in the UK?
Cannabis resin by definition is more potent than herbal forms, it is an extract - a concentrated product produced from the resin glands of the Cannabis plant. A quick look over any Dutch coffeeshop hash selection will reveal products in excess of 30-40% THC/CBD. Unfortunately this level of purity is not what we find in hash on the British market, its low potency is a result of it being reprocessed for our market and bulked out with fillers ranging from beeswax, henna and coffeegrounds to plastics, oils and tranquillisers.
Is this seriously the message you wish to give? The state of herbal Cannabis ('Skunk' is a strain and not a specific breed or variant of Cannabis - Cultivar would be a more apt choice of word) isn't much better with issues such as silica, sugar and worse lead contamination but clean product can be found if one is educated in the signs of contamination. I'd rather people were smoking clean, untampered with herbal cannabis than dirty UK hash.
Posted by: Fraser Wade | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 02:19 PM
Jeremy I would respectfully suggest you check the sources of your alleged THC %ages.
There is no such thing as new "super strong skunk", this is a fiction founded in American Far Right Fundamentalist circles and in the DEA.
There is not even as yet a standardised test for THC content, so the figures are generally pulled out of a hat, for scaremongering purposes. 16%??? 16% of what? And which herbal cannabis did you measure that gave 8%. And why then, does the government state that "skunk" is herbal cannabis.
In fact, skunk is a fairly weak (and boring) strain of cannabis that has been optimised for quick indoor growth, and little else. Most traditional equatorial herbal cannabis is far, far stronger. Even other non-skunk strains that are grown indoors are stronger than skunk, but dealers never bother with these because they take too long and need too much specialist care. Such strains are the province of the connoisseur and seldom - if ever - make it to the street.
Any danger associated with skunk is more likely to be due to poor cultivation, or early harvest, which gives it a nervous, tetchy, unpleasant "high", and with unsuitable chemicals and toxic insecticides that serve only financial interests. Legalisation would remove all these problems (which the govt. claims it cares about) in one fell swoop.
In fact NO TEST has ever been performed measuring Dutch "skunk" strains against traditional weed, if such test were carried out this myth would soon be laid to rest!
Take this as a challenge and check your facts!
All government and EU reports have stated unequivocally that there is no "new", stronger cannabis strain.
Even the government admitted this, when its "Frank" campaign was taken to the Advertising Standards Authority, claiming in effect that it was a "white lie" to "protect the children" -- presumably the government feels they are too stupid to be given the real facts.
Even the rabid John Walters (American Drug Tsar) doesn't dare spout such rubbish as our papers do, I assume because he'd be taken to task pretty quickly. No, he's quite happy to say the new "super strong" cannabis is at 8%, showing once again that
a) No-one has done any real measurement
b) No-one even knows what they are supposed to be measuring
And on the basis of this lamentable scaremongering, the Home Office has the arrogance to state that it is making informed decisions.
Mere opportunist politicking, and Jacqui Smith should be ashamed of herself. (But oh, I forgot, in her day she smoked the "old-type", good, cannabis, not the new one... this, this Skunk of Mass Destruction!
Posted by: Al Green | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 02:45 PM
I agree with fraser, most hash sold on the street in the uk is what is known as soap bar, containing hardly any thc and is made by growers from the leftover leaves and stalks from a crop, this is contaminated with- as stated above - all sorts including petrol and plastic, has anyone studied what effects smoking these causes? Hash is not readily available on uk streets, the dutch cafes mentioned are the only places you can buy genuine hash. At least with skunk you have visual signs of contamination, or maybe not? can you? now i'm not sure maybe i'm just paranoid!!
Posted by: Sara | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 02:51 PM
A little add-on:
Yes, its a very good point Fraser makes, anybody that claims cannabis resin (hashish) is weaker than herbal cannabis bud, is too clueless even to participate in this discussion without urgent education. The active cannabinoids are almost totally present in the resin, with minimal amounts in the plant matter.
Herbal cannabis will yield resin at a ratio of about 1:10 for really good quality buds, about 1:20 for average quality and maybe 1:7 from the absolutely best, perfectly grown indoor plants. Since all the cannabinoids are in the resin, this means that if the resin is not at least 15 stronger than the herbal matter, you should be asking questions.
It also means that all the hippies puffing at quality Afghan, Maroccan and Lebanese hashish in the 60s and 70s were smoking stuff that was AT LEAST 10x as strong as any of today's street "skunks", so enough of this "today's stronger weed" bullshit already!
Posted by: Al Green | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 03:12 PM
Great discussion guys -
I for one have noticed a significant decline in the volume, availability and quality of all types of marajuana in the UK over the past 15 years. These days it has been replaced by easy to buy cheap alcohol and easy to buy cheap class a drugs - notably cocaine which continues to fall in price. The government's new stance is completely unnecessary. Blatant attempt to appear strong on an issue that doesn't require any attention.
Cracking down on marajuana is a bit like them cracking down on LSD - its pretty pointless and pretty out of date. Alcohol and Cocaine are the main players in social circles at the moment - but they pose very difficult social and enforcement issues - issues that this government (a government that I used to support) can't handle anymore. If Gordon Brown thinks this will enhance his shocking reputation, he is mistaken. He should have legalised it and regained some of his popularity with the common man - he is a weak and ineffective leader and he takes the electorate for granted - he thinks we are all stupid. Anyone who manages to make David Cameron look electable must be a total arse.
Posted by: Quados | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 03:47 PM
Its an awful thing to do to tell folk that they are more likely to go mad from cannabis if they feel "paranoid".
Its utter nonsense and likely to give the poor things a "bad trip".
Its time to accumulate community wisdom about cannabis, not more "reefer madness" myths.
The advisory body on drugs hsa accepted a study from Keele University that has shown that levels of psychoses have dropped during the last ten years in the UK, which is incompatible with the hypothesis that cannabis is raising levels.
Indeed if anything it would appear to be lowering them.
Cannabis is a shamanic healing herb and is best used with an experienced guide. In lieu of that,... community wisdom.
The Anglo-Saxons used cannabis ritually at the time of the sowing of the seed and of the harvest. Its use is associated with the fertility goddess Freya, their most important female deity.
Christianity appears to have always been hostile to cannabis and I see this new classification as an extension of the Puritanical, prohibitionist mentality.
The Hindus have enjoyed cannabis for thousands of years... WHY DONT WE ASK THEM FOR GUIDANCE?
Skunk rules! Manna from heaven! Accept nothing less than top notch ripe sensimilla bud!
Selah, let the musicians play (lol)
Posted by: are you experienced? (jimmy hendrix) | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 05:39 PM
Perhaps we should have saved te money from the ACMD meeting and let these guys above advise the government?
It would have saved a fortune, and the information supplied would have been "in tune" with the cannabis debate.
Great information guys.
Red Dragon
Canna Zine - Daily zine for the global cannabis scene - Join us!
Posted by: red dragon | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 08:07 PM
Jeremy Laurance said: "But if you get paranoid feelings when you smoke then it may be wise to heed the warnings and desist."
Sheer genius! If it hurts when you bang your head, then stop banging it.
Well obviously it is a farce to make cannabis *even more* illegal. Its usage is so widespread that the government would have to lock up a fair percentage of the population.
Only the jails are full already and - guess what - drugs use is rife within them!
Laws that are widely flouted simply bring the whole criminal justice system into disrepute. So yes, advice and health education is the way to go.
Maybe the government should research why peoples' lives are so miserable that they feel they have to seek solace in chemicals?
Posted by: Mark_IV | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 10:53 PM
Is it me, or is Jacqui Smith the most useless Home Secretary the UK's endured for many a year (and given her immediate predecessors, that's saying something)? From the ID scam, to the push for 90-day detentions, and now this drug reclassification inanity, she has demonstrated nothing but a craven subservience to the worst excesses of Blairite nanny-state authoritarianism.
What is it with New Labour Home Secretaries? Each of them has somehow conspired to make Michael Howard look like the caricature of a hand-wringing liberal, combining petty authoritarianism and gross indifference to justice, tolerance, and the ideals of liberal democracy. Blunkett, Clarke, Reid, and now Smith are the types of tin-pot demagogues who should never be given more political power than granted the average parish councillor. At least with her predecessors, you got the impression they believed in the rubbish they proposed. With Smith you get the sense she's got nothing but inertia -- no guts, no backbone, no moral fibre whatsoever. The epitome of a anonymous functionary in a two-bit Stalinist state.
At the rate she's going, Saudi Arabia will be a beacon of tolerance compared to the cradle of Western democracy.
Posted by: Macander | Thursday, 08 May 2008 at 11:14 PM
It never ceases to amaze me just how deluded and militant the pro cannabis movement are, and how they will never admit that using cannabis not even the new high strength strains has any risks what so ever. They are living in magical land, there’s no such thing as a recreational drug that has no negative side effects, what makes them think cannabis is so different. Why is marijuana the only illegal drug to have a pro movement behind it? No recreational drugs should have a pro movement behind them, if you want to do them then fine it’s your health, but don’t try to make our young people think the use of any recreational drug is harmless.
I speak from experience I was once brain washed into thinking that marijuana was harmless, abused the new high strength strains heavily and ended up in a mental hospital and have never really recovered, it has damaged my brain permanently, my memory and cognitive abilities are shot to bits, not to mention what it has done to my lungs, and why is that ignored, it’s not just about about mental health, don’t you need your lungs as well, smoking tobacco gets loads of flak for the damage it does to your lungs alone and smoking marijuana is far worse. I have learnt the hard way that cannabis is dangerous. I now help run a forum trying to warn and help others with a problem with cannabis, for anybody who needs to speak to others who have been there here’s the link.
http://www.forummatters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16
Posted by: Dom | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 01:49 AM
- reducing the 'illegal' appeal would certainly help reducing the 'coolness' associated with cannabis, finding it and using it, let's take away the 'having it' image that pushes many to it whilst otherwise they would probably prefer playing football.
- the unconscious reaction to something by definition hard to find but that we eventually like, makes one more obssessed with the object and pushes one to keep looking for it when the normal attitude towards it would just really evolve towards a normal recreationnal attitude.
- Like any drug, including tobacco and alcohol, most will cope very well and keep it as it is, recreationnal, other will get caught by it and need help, some other will react to it very badly.
- by keeping drugs illegal the system forces many who are at the edge into the dark side of that system, because it makes life even more difficult for them, not only do they have their inherent problems to deal with, but on top of it they are drawned into a system where they have no chance to learn to help themselves.
- this flawed debate about cannabis is part of a much bigger and more flawed debate about drugs in general.
- Take all that whole criminal drug system costs to a country, in crime from real addicts stealing to feed the habit, in black money going to underground criminal organisations helping financing more criminal activities, in policing something that cannot be policed that way, and finally in many broken lifes because that system forces many, who otherwise would reasnnably cope with their habit, into a lifestyle that do not allow them to try and live a quasi normal life, and finally by leaving the substances in the hands of criminals simply makes the substancs more harmfull than they should be, mostly by lack of choice and information.
- By choice and information, I mean, now a days the only decent quality that one can find here is strong skunk and my own experienc is that yes it is more harmfull than other types. What is always forgotten is that they are very many strand of cannabis which provides substancial differences in effects and harmfullness.
I believe legalisation of cannabis woulde actually help the problems, by letting people make informed choices about what they consume and removing all the 'illegal' attraction from it.
And all the money that is being spent on stupid policy and its consequences would be much better used in providing real help to those who need it, be it either them needing help because of drugs, or being on drugs because needing help...
Finally, maybe the real problem is not cannabis noadays but cocaine, obviously the City has had far too much of it for the last 10 years...
Posted by: fab | Saturday, 25 October 2008 at 12:10 PM