tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post5212470985003794774..comments2023-12-31T00:03:21.523+00:00Comments on Ewan has something to say: My speech to the fringe event on cannabis regulationEwan Hoylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-82777358104087616952011-10-03T11:06:57.391+01:002011-10-03T11:06:57.391+01:00I by no means claim to be an expert on the link be...I by no means claim to be an expert on the link between cannabis and psychosis. I am aware that what I say is simply personal experience and having studied “lay health beliefs” I know that many people do develop explanatory theories for health conditions that draw on their own experience. In addition to this I am not suggesting any of the above commentators are wrong.<br /><br />Having been in a psychiactric unit for a few months I find it hard to shake the feeling that cannabis does, even in a minor fashion, lead to psychosis. I recall sitting in a room with five young people diagnosed with first episode psychosis when the subject of cannabis came up. Four of them had been heavy users and they admitted lying about it to their health workers – the general concenus being that they wanted to avoid the grief that they would get. Having seen how high a percentage of people in hospital care were heavy users it did make me feel that there was a link. Of course this is not a peer reviewed article - just my thoughts.<br /><br />The Royal College Of Psychiatrists on their website do suggest a link. I can only assume if this is not based on studies then they are taking a “better safe than sorry approach” based on what they see in their work.<br /><br />Also, great article Ewan.Stephanie.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-12708055765899629952011-09-28T21:09:13.871+01:002011-09-28T21:09:13.871+01:00Numerous references can be found in this helpful p...Numerous references can be found in this helpful publication produced by Rethink Mental Illness: http://www.rethink.org/how_we_can_help/news_and_media/briefing_notes/educating_reefer.html?shortcut=educatingreefer<br /><br />To answer some specific points raised, I'd hope that a very wide variety of strains and preparations would be available in each pharmacist, covering a much broader range of potential experience than even your most well-stocked illegal dealer.<br /><br />On the education required before first sale, it is not for me to say what is appropriate, but "going on a course" would be a bit much. I think a leaflet and maybe a maximum ten minute chat about health harms should be sufficient to encourage safe use and an appropriate response to health concerns. If people were to be excluded from purchasing on the grounds of mental health concerns then these people would presumably prop up the illegal market, so the education process and age should probably be the only requirements. The education should be just the facts, delivered in a non-judgemental fashion. We do the same with family-planning clinics...<br /><br />I hope this answers your concerns Dave. I'm very aware that users will not play ball if they feel judged or patronised. There may need to be a fair bit of training provided to vendors for implementation to prove successful.<br /><br />The medicinal use of cannabis is an important issue. I did raise it in my speech. <br /><br />Sunshine Band clearly thinks my brother developed psychosis after using drugs. This was not the case.Ewan Hoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00007206200639738854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-55344116083826737472011-09-23T07:48:31.073+01:002011-09-23T07:48:31.073+01:00Don't get bogged down with Ewan's unshakea...Don't get bogged down with Ewan's unshakeable belief - it's a simplistic way out for people to avoid their family issues by blaming drugs. Context is everything, and the context of criminality makes many people ill through drug use.<br /><br />What is more important is that the whole regulatory ethos being touted is WRONG. Yes, it makes some sense to look at regulating certain large scale activities, but you simply must stop thinking it is cannabis or a drug being regulated - it's the consumer!! Start from this premise, a person has some basic rights to privacy do they not, and then frame the criterion of the law which is social harm into the equation. Now, from the perspective of the individual, what regulation of the person should take place with someone who is not causing harm? Answer is none, it's a private matter concerning his/her body chemistry. The threshold for personal freedom needs to be brought out, and this is why I despair at this whole fetishised focus on cannabis and IT'S regulation. And the 'illegal drugs' idiocy comes up again here which shows me you are locked into the wrong mind set about this. I am glad by the way Ewan that the outcome of your work at the LibDems is perhaps better than it looked like it was going to be from reading your plemic, in that there seems to be an 'all options on the table' possibility. But it's the whole way of thinking that is wrong, and making comparisons with tobacco is fruitless. It was encouraged for generations as part a cynical exploitative official drug dealing in addictive drugs policy. Drugs like alcohol and tobacco cause most harm because the dealers in them enjoy monopolies - start to regulate persons properly and all will become clear.Sunshine Bandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08351908969557708343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-47909396910875784052011-09-23T00:03:21.624+01:002011-09-23T00:03:21.624+01:00while already working regulation models are now mo...while already working regulation models are now moving towards the cooprative model !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-40034926416545508452011-09-22T22:14:50.164+01:002011-09-22T22:14:50.164+01:00Is there any chance you could reference the eviden...Is there any chance you could reference the evidence you have used to come to your conclusions on cannabis?<br /><br />If i were to undertake such a journey i would be asking the foremost experts on cannabis., names like;<br />Dr Lester Grinspoon<br />Our very own Dr Leslie Iverson or maybe even Professor David Nutt if your feeling especially controversial. Even Peter Lilley wrote a paper on it that Mr Cameron referenced in his maiden speech as Prime minister in the commons.<br /><br />There are many other good works to reference too in Holland and Spain especially. I also believe there is a lot of very positive research going on in Israel too.<br /><br />The balance of the evidence for and against cannabis MUST be weighed and not merely drawn from evidence of self proclaimed experts with corporate pharmaceutically backed agendas. Sources need to come from a wide spectrum. Never has a plant been so closely studied in human history, yet seemingly we know so little about it.<br /><br />So as a nicely put request i'd love to see where you have drawn your conclusions from please.<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-36364085313987710522011-09-22T19:59:34.460+01:002011-09-22T19:59:34.460+01:00Having read several scientific papers on cannabis ...Having read several scientific papers on cannabis and psychosis - the evidence seems to point to high THC and Low CBD strains being the higher risk factor for triggering an underlying mental condition (most of the papers I've read do not state that cannabis causes psychosis but can in those predisposed to suffer from it agrivate it, just like alcohol can).<br /><br />But until the government gets its head out of the daily mail and has a grown up debate on drugs we will never tell if that evidence stacks up.<br /><br />Until then the majority of cannabis users will have more damage done to them by the criminal system than the cannabis they take.Mr Bimblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-71842541232713464852011-09-22T18:24:55.982+01:002011-09-22T18:24:55.982+01:00Ewan vastly overstates the risks of psychosis from...Ewan vastly overstates the risks of psychosis from the use of cannabis.<br /><br />Hickman, Lewis, Zammit et al, based on a 2009 meta analysis of ALL published research (so not cherry picked) said that "there is no certainty of a causal link" but that if cannabis does cause psychosis then the risk is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.0030%Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-27658038867118558672011-09-22T17:59:46.954+01:002011-09-22T17:59:46.954+01:00I like these ideas, though they're a sensible ...I like these ideas, though they're a sensible starting point rather than the end game. We should continue to push for less restrictions in the long-term, as this is the ONLY way we can redirect demand for cannabis to legitimate, regulated sources and really hit drug dealers where it hurts.<br /><br />The problem I foresee with this pharmacy model is that many cannabis users are not going to warm to it if they continue to feel ostracised, misjudged or patronised (especially while tobacco and alcohol sales continue with nowhere near the same restriction), or if they simply can't get a strain or quantity of cannabis that they want. There's little incentive for people to jump through hoops for the government's sake when they can call up their local dealer to meet their demands without a hitch. Basically, it has to be worth it to people not to go to dealers instead.<br /><br />I'm also wondering exactly how it is pharmacies would seek to educate would-be buyers. Would purchasing cannabis necessitate going on a cannabis crash course (and resulting license)? Or a doctor's note proving a clean bill of mental health? Or would it be something like a simlpe information pamphlet with every purchase? It's an interesting idea but again, I'd be concerned that it if it's too restrictive it'd do little to dissuade people from the street market.<br /><br />Peter is correct about the risks here being overstated. I think we rightly could move to market regulation off the bat and see a reduction in harms to society as a whole (greatly reduced heroin and cocaine use is a fair tradeoff for a rise in use of cannabis from a clean, quality-assured supply), but I have sympathy for a cautious approach nonetheless. What's most important is that we make some kind of progress rather than going backwards.Dave Harrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-36875109691745083572011-09-22T17:12:44.043+01:002011-09-22T17:12:44.043+01:00it seems that having the state as a sole controlle...it seems that having the state as a sole controller makes no sense if worrying about the criminal element of legalisation. <br />if it was to be state controlled what do they control exactly? if its distribution then yes state should set certain levels and this is controlable. however when it concerns growing and sale there are issues. 1st)as you mentioned who to they higher? a scientist ? an doctor? a current cannabis grower? or a gardener? 2nd)breeds of cannabis. there would be assumingly a list of breeds that a grower would be permitted to grow. this will likly be more stable (ths,cbd) breeds. this is bound to leave breeds out and would constanly need updating. if it is not then criminal eliments will step in and sell those breed excluded which most likly will be high thc and low cbd.<br />and 3rd)if place of sale is purly chemist based, then young adults will turn to street sellers to avoid lectures or having to register etc.<br />if the main concern is health the worst option is to leave huge holes in the criminal market. purly state based leaves holes that can be manipulated by the wrong elements in society. the best solution is to have a balence of state and private working together. this will minimise criminal activities keeping young adults away from street sellers and easy routes to other more dangerous drugs. but most importantly away from contamination of street weed and the health risks that follow.ravehathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460750595280933333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-52444778572303134152011-09-22T14:26:16.123+01:002011-09-22T14:26:16.123+01:00Yet another news story showing what a backward nat...Yet another news story showing what a backward nation we are, lagging behind more progressive nations in our approach to cannabis. I think America is a good example to be following. They have had legal medical use of cannabis in many states for some years now, and have not seen any rise in teenage use, and the legally licensed users have not been moving onto hard drugs, or developed mental problems. Having seen this 'living evidence' the general public there are now moving towards favouring legal, regulated use for the whole population, over 21 years of age.Dan Fordhttp://clear-uk.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-33425804341488945912011-09-22T13:54:51.515+01:002011-09-22T13:54:51.515+01:00Ewan, As you know, I support your efforts in prin...Ewan, As you know, I support your efforts in principle but you vastly overstate the dangers of cannabis and your distortion of the evidence would do credit to any prohibitionist.<br /><br />What sort of absurd generalisation is it to say:<br /><br />"Psychiatrists will tell you it is causal. Users will tell me that it is correlation often combined with some degree of personal abuse in my direction."<br /><br />??<br /><br />Those sentences reveal an awful lot about you that is unhelpful in this debate.<br /><br />The fact is that those who believe that the relationship between cannabis and psychosis is causal are in a tiny minority. When you accused me of lying about Glyn Lewis and Stanley Zammit's research on the LibDem ACT website, a psychiatrict who had worked with them told you that you are wrong.<br /><br />I understand and sympathise with your personal experience but it does not determine the truth.<br /><br />The CLEAR plan for the regulation of cannabis in Britain sets out proposals which are based on consultation with users, doctors, scientists, lawyers and policymakers. I hope you will give it proper consideration.<br /> <br />Finally, the ommission of anything to do with the medicinal use of cannabis is a serious oversight. The potential for cannabis as medicine is huge and far more significant than these other issues. I urge anyone who has not yet done so to find out about the endocannabinoid system.Peter Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02181779476005970939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8092430636185966436.post-22710807902020857862011-09-22T13:03:00.271+01:002011-09-22T13:03:00.271+01:00I agree with most of that, particularly in the sho...I agree with most of that, particularly in the short term. I'm inclined to believe though, that licensed and responsible producers would do more than just compete on quality and predictability of dose. Presently regulated quality produce would emerge that posed spectacularly lower health risks and the "correlation vs. causation" argument would solve itself. I would hope we move towards this slowly, using scientific evidence as our guide, but surely in the end that is the hoped-for direction of travel?Bolivia Newton-Johnhttp://bolivianewtonjohn.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com