Dear Anonymous, Please don't be the Leeroy Jenkins of drug policy reform.

I read with concern that the online activist organisation "Anonymous" have chosen to initiate a cannabis legalisation campaign http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/04/anonymous_announces_opcannabis_phase_1.php on the very same weekend that the Guatemalan president, Otto Perez Molina, has made the most nuanced, sophisticated argument for reform to come from a head of state in my time as a drug policy reformer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/war-drugs-latin-american-leaders.

I am concerned because your unelected group of activists, while no doubt meaning well, do not present the same nuances, nor do you possess enough understanding, of the options for reform or the potential harms of the drug of which you speak.

One of the "hysterical anti-cannabis campaigners" some liberalisers describe turns out to be in fact be a "good liberal" psychiatrist persuaded by the steady accumulation of evidence that the links between cannabis and psychosis are real: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01bwmvt (from 17:50). Like so many medicines both ancient and new, cannabis is a dangerous drug AND a medicine and needs to be regulated as such.

So Anonymous, you are wrong to say that cannabis is not a dangerous drug. You may also be quite wrong in your mode of activity. Phase 1 appears to be completely benign, though it will likely be an unhelpful display to the rest of society that the usual suspects support cannabis "legalisation". I am also very uneasy that "Phase 1" hints at further phases of Anonymous activity. With the US government being presented with the best arguments for reform by Latin American leaders in the near future, we really do not need them to be distracted by stunts in support of the poorer, tired, traditional arguments for reform. History is littered with instances of acts and campaigns that piss off enemies delaying indefinitely the eminently reasonable changes the acts were meant to bring about. I'm pretty sure the Falklands would be the Malvinas by now if the Argentinians hadn't invaded in the 80s. And Osama bin Laden was trying to get American troops to LEAVE the Middle East when he started his campaign of terror. I'm not comparing you guys to Osama bin Laden. I'm just saying that, if Phase 2 or 3 involves being dicks in the eyes of the government just because you can, then that kind of stuff tends not to work the way it's intended.

If you want to push the "free the weed" agenda, you would be much better off drawing attention to the moderate arguments for gradual reform. Once we have achieved the strict control and regulation of legally available cannabis, then the argument on whether to regulate lightly or continue strict regulation can begin.

And apologies for the Leeroy Jenkins line. It was a crude attempt to speak your language. Hell, I can't even be bothered embedding links (did I even say that right?)

And please don't take this as an attack. It's a plea for you guys to be a help rather than a hindrance. We're so close to achieving our shared goal.

Best wishes,

Ewan.

The question is "how?" not "whether?" on cannabis legalisation

This is a copy of a contribution I have just made to a discussion on the LDDPR group on Lib Dem Act. I'm not sure if I have properly set out my stall on this before so thought it important to put it out there to give an impression on the kind of thing I think LDDPR and eventually the Lib Dems should be advocating.

Original source here: http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/liberaldemocratsfordrugpolicyreform/forum/topics/cannabis-legalisation-here-and

"My position on this issue is very much one of "better safe than sorry". It is glaringly obvious that the classification of cannabis at Class B or Class C does nothing to increase public safety. The economics and practicalities of the illegal trade in cannabis incentivises the distribution of stronger "skunk" varieties at the expense of the milder, more traditional varieties. This phenomenon arises for the same reason as the expansion of hard liquor in America under alcohol prohibition. It might be debated by some in the drug policy reform movement, but I believe it quite reasonable to assume from the evidence available that skunk brings a higher risk of mental illness than traditional strains (remember it is better to be safe than sorry). Ensuring milder strains are available for sale, and ensuring professional advice is available to guide choices made, should reduce consumption of "skunk" and reduce mental health risks.

More important evidence to consider is the evidence suggesting that there is a sensitive period of brain development in which risk of later psychosis is dramatically increased by cannabis use. If risk of psychosis is massively increased if you are exposed to cannabis regularly before you are 15 and only slightly increased if you smoke before 18, then surely we need to identify ways of restricting cannabis consumption in young teenagers. Currently cannabis use is totally unregulated and rife in teenage culture. Under a controlled and regulated market it would be possible to restrict access to cannabis to those over 18 (or other specified age), and to introduce licensing and taggant technology to improve our ability to deter provision of drugs to children and prosecute those who defy the law.

I have serious concerns about the lack of awareness about the links between cannabis and mental illness in America and other countries where legalisation is being considered. I am keen for any moves in this direction in the UK to reject the Dutch coffee-shop model in favour of strictly regulated sales from pharmacists. I am also hopeful that a licensing scheme could be adopted that would necessitate customers receive drug-specific education on mental health, general health, financial, behavioural and other issues that may arise as a result of drug use. Education on the early warning signs of psychosis in particular would not only allow early intervention in cannabis-induced psychosis, but would increase public knowledge of the condition and allow early intervention in cases of psychosis not related to drug use. Schizophrenia is a cause of not only massive suffering for patients and families, but massive economic costs to the country as a whole. Properly controlling illegal drugs presents an excellent opportunity to alleviate future suffering and reduce these costs.

The great danger in the use of any drug is ignorance, and I hope that a commitment to tackle ignorance will reduce both use of drugs and the harms that drug use and the prohibition of that use currently causes."

Belittling the link between cannabis and schizophrenia should come second to ensuring education at point of sale.

I was disappointed to read the following in Mark Easton's blog today, especially having witnessed at first hand what schizophrenia can do to a family.



"Professor Nutt accepts there is a link between cannabis and mental ill-health. He cites research suggesting that "smokers of cannabis are about 2.6 times more likely to have a psychotic-like experience than non-smokers".
But he points out that "you are 20 times more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke tobacco than if you don't." In other words, he says, "(T)here is a relatively small risk for smoking cannabis and psychotic illness compared with quite a substantial risk for smoking tobacco and lung cancer". "



Given that risk of schizophrenia for a sibling of a schizophrenic is around 10%, I would have been very grateful for the information that joining my friends in smoking cannabis as a teenager might have increased my risk of psychosis to around 1 in 4. Very grateful indeed. Schizophrenia isn't comparable with lung cancer. Lung cancer generally affects people in old age (though of course you can get it younger if you smoke), schizophrenia generally strikes in your late teens or your early twenties and is very capable of radically altering your personality to one that your friends and family find bewildering and frightening. It can lead to a lifetime of exclusion, torn between the drugs that numb your emotions and the exciting delusions that keep your mind busy, but that can severely impair your social functioning.

I wrote the above earlier, and now that I've just finished watching question time, I'm dismayed by the pride in stupidity that Jacqui Smith, the tory, the Plaid guy and John Sergeant displayed. If cannabis is so very dangerous then you need to educate people about the dangers and be in a position to help them if they get into trouble. Making it more illegal doesn't have any effect on levels of use and will only make them less likely to seek help if they get into difficulty. What is perhaps more important, is that their friends, who are probably in the best position to guage their changes in personality, are going to be less likely to seek help on their behalf if they witness problems emerging. The best way to keep our young people safe is to ensure that education on risks is provided every time a purchase is made (as is the case currently with tobacco, a more addictive drug, so presumably a less effective deterrent than would be the case with cannabis. The cannabis education should be more extensive than "You'll Go Mad" on the side of the packet though). The pharmacist, the doctor, the police and the family need to be seen as friends and allies in this, not the enemy to be avoided and deceived.

I have seen what happens when schizophrenia is not caught early, and I would not wish it on my worst enemy, not even Jacqui Smith. The enemy in all this is ignorance, and the best way to combat it is to seize the market from organised crime, and ensure the strictly regulated trade in cannabis has education at point of sale at its core.