Cannabis Skunk Sense at the House of Commons
Posted In: cannabis, Government, Legality, Recovery
Comments: 25 Responses
I was invited by Mary Brett of Cannabis Skunk Sense to attend a meeting of the Cannabis and Children All Party Parliamentary Group. The meeting was to focus on the story of “Richard – the experiences and struggles of recovery from cannabis addiction”. It took place the Monday after the Global Initiative for Drug Policy reform issued this statement from a range of current and former world leaders, scientists, medics, law enforcers and academics calling for an end to the ‘war on drugs’.
I had requested to film the meeting but this was declined.
I spend a lot of time with people who use a whole range of drugs and who campaign for the lifting of Prohibition, so it made a change to be surrounded by people who believe that our drug laws should stay as they are and was extremely useful to hear and understand the perspectives of those coming from a different angle.
There were around 20 people present at the meeting which the Chair, MP Charles Walker said was a good turnout for a Monday night. It gradually became clear that most of those attending had been affected by drugs in some way – perhaps losing a child to drug use or having to look after a child who has become very unwell through drug use. Others in attendance work in the field – such as Barry Twigg from the National Drug Prevention Alliance and Mary Brett from Cannabis Skunk Sense. These are people who have been described as ‘monsters’ by some of the pro cannabis lobby so it was interesting to be amidst them in the flesh.
Richard’s Story
The meeting began with an account by Richard – a recovering addict now in his early 40s. He told a story similar to many that can be heard here on Know Drugs. As a child, he’d had a range of serious health problems and doctors told him his health would mean he would never grow up to do anything successful as an adult. He was from a family of addicts (mainly alcoholics) and he was sexually abused as a child. His first addiction was to food and at 18 years old he was 16 stone (224 pounds). He suffered from eating disorders and was bulllied at school. He could barely read and write when he left school.
Richard spent evenings with his alcoholic parents in the pub. Though alcohol marred his childhood, it was the drug he started on. He called it his gateway drug. This was a theme that would re-emerge heavily later in the meeting but with the finger being pointed at cannabis as the gateway drug.
After developing a heavy drink habit that his liver could not sustain, Richard discovered cannabis. He said it was the first thing to have made him feel calm. The voices in his head finally disappeared and for a few years he was very happy. However, ‘anti-drug’ friends of his pressured him to go back to alcohol for a few years and it wasn’t till he hit 30 that he began a 7 year love affair with cannabis – which he prefers to call marijuana. In this period he switched from regular weed to smoking skunk.
Richard implied he was using a range of drugs but didn’t name any beyond cannabis and alcohol. He said we frequently drove while stoned and felt he could only fit in with his friends if he was smoking weed. Some time after the deaths due to alcoholism deaths of his mother and a friend, Richard hit his rock bottom and found his way into rehab and the 12 steps fellowship. He is committed to the process and his life appears now to be improving steadily. Richard’s final words to the meeting were ‘cannabis ruined my life – until I came into recovery’.
The Discussion which Followed
Dr Barry Twigg from the National Drug Prevention Alliance (NDPA) wanted to know whether access to counselling services would have prevented Richard’s problems arising in the first place but Richard wasn’t certain how he would have come into contact with these kind of services. Dr. Twigg raised the point that ‘education is the problem – education of parents, young people and doctors is lacking.’
A representative from the Redbridge branch of Cannabis Skunk Sense said they have won funding to hold local meetings so that they can give the full facts about cannabis to parents, teachers and any interested parties. They raised concern that children as young as 11 were being used to sell drugs.
I had a question for Richard. He mentioned a range of drugs in his story and it had sounded to me like alcohol was foremost among those that had caused him problems, so why had he chosen to end his speech with the phrase ‘cannabis ruined my life’. He responded that cannabis ‘ was the drug that brought me to my knees’.
Chairing the meeting, Charles Walker MP – added to this that people who say the war on drugs has failed have not done their research. They are relying on their experiences from the 1960s and ’70s to make this kind of assumption. This sentiment was widely echoed around the room. Richard continued ‘Alcohol was my gateway drug, but marijuana accelerated me into drug using’.
Mary Brett of Cannabis Skunk Sense talked about the on-going fights she is having with the website FRANK as they omit to tell the truth about cannabis. She hypothesised that civil servants block everything she is doing. She cites the major report she wrote which has 30 references proving cannabis is a gateway drug. She said that when she had gone back to look at the FRANK site again, they had added some of the information she sent them about the risks of cannabis. Mary urged those present to write to their MPs about FRANK. She described the case of a parent she knew who’s child had read advice on the site to ‘use less strong cannabis’ and who is now psychotic. Mary felt this parent has a case for a lawsuit against the FRANK website.
Throughout the meeting there was talk of lack of drug education and counselling services for teens and parents and complaints that the services needed to alleviate the problems around drugs are not being provided. Much of this debate would have sat quite comfortably in a room full of what those at this meeting call ‘the Legalisers’.
One attendee suggested that the distinction between cannabis and skunk be made more clear as ‘people dont’ realise how much more dangerous it is now’. He described friends of his who had smoked cannabis in the 60s and 70s and were fine, but who’s children are ‘going dotty’. Charles Walker MP again made the point that our drug laws are based on experiences of those in the 1960s and ’70s and that they are are out of date. He said people are in denial and they only think it is acceptable to use cannabis if their information about the high grades currently sold is out of date. He stated that ‘Legalisers are talking about cannabis, not skunk’.
I asked whether the Committee would be issuing a statement in response to the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform statement and Walker’s response was ‘The good news is that most people who sign these letters don’t work in Parliament, so their votes don’t count. A list of names on a piece of paper doesn’t count for anything’. He added that he has firm assurances from the Government that they do not plan to change drug policy so there is no need to issue any kind of response to the Global Initiative. In fact, responding to a statement calling for an end to the war on drugs only gives it credibility so since the cards are all in the hands of defenders of the status quo (and to Walker’s knowledge that will not change in the life time of this Parliament), the best way to proceed is to ignore it – and Government would be wrong to engage with ‘these people’.
Walker added that a few Lib Dems supported changing the drug laws but did not mention their September vote to explore decriminalisation of all drugs.
Mary Brett went onto talk about research done by Robin Murray into THC (the active ingredient in cannabis). He had dosed people with the compound until they became psychotic. Mary’s conclusion: if you take enough, you WILL become psychotic.
There was consensus in the meeting that those who felt it was ok to use cannabis simply hadn’t done their research and that more education was needed. It was stated that people who smoke cannabis and say they are ok – are wrong. Charles Walker said ignorance was to blame, not ‘badness’. There was some shock and amazement at the meeting that even parents ‘in good jobs’ let their children drink alcohol and smoke cannabis.
One man said he felt there should be an officials response to the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform because ”we’re bombarded by names in the press saying legalise drugs and if we’re not combatting this, these people get credibility. We should be counteracting it. Otherwise how do we persuade parents and teens that taking drugs is dangerous?”
Charles Walker responded to this that the Legalisers were getting a rough ride in some newspaper editorials, such as this from Peter Hitchens.
There were other areas in which the discussion became very similar to one you would hear amidst pro-reformers: mention of shame around drug use being behind a reluctance to seek help or advice if a problem arises and the merry-go-round nature of their discussions – they call year after year on government to assist with better drug education and treatment options for young people but this falls on deaf ears.
In a discussion after the meeting, the arguments of ”Legalisers” were discussed and dismissed.
- Legalisers say drug cartels are given money by the current legal status of drugs, but alcohol and tobacco are still imported illegally
- Legalisers say that legalisation would mean we could better protect under 18s – but children can easily buy cigarettes and alcohol
- Richard Branson (one of the signees on the Global Initiative Document) has an agenda – his appeal for drug law reform is in keeping with his companies’ target audiences



It’s shocking to see a small group of people gathering together in order to bolster one another’s opinions in the face of massive contradictory evidence – at least they have one another – and it’s a shame a parilimentary group should be so closed minded. Not very democratic. If prohibitionists (a legacy of the religious and moralistic temperance movement I believe/would argue) only look at a hand-full of ‘psychotics’ and ignore the majority then they’re being closed-minded; their very perception of events is warped and they cannot see the wood for the trees. Also psychosis in the average individual and the drug user might be an interesting comparison – and might show society should shoulder some of the blame for the mental health of young people.
I wished they’d let you film this.
Free the weed & busy the people with too much time on their hands who aren’t willing/able to contribute to society in any meaningful way.
x
How Charles Walker M.P. can stand up in the house and quote lay people that have no professional experience and expect people to take him seriously is beyond me.
If 11 year old children are selling drugs that is because there are no controls in place, after 40/50 years there needs to be a change because what we have is not working.
The other far more disconcerting point is that the same M.P. can say he has had firm assurances that there will be no change to drug policy, when the Home Affairs Select Committee is currently sifting through evidence on drug policy.
I want answers from Mr Walker, he is undermining said committee and the process involved.
the only reason these people has to keep the dissemination of lies is money. everybody knows they get money from drug dealers to keep prohibition as it is
Daniel
I really have to disagree with the point you’re making here. I’ve met most of the UK’s leading Prohibitionist campaigners in their own homes and your claims could not be further from the truth. Further, I think making unfounded and frankly ridiculous statements like this undermines any argument you have for changing the laws on drugs – as it makes you appear to be an unsound witness.
Many Prohibitionists (or Preventionists as they prefer to be called) make similar ridiculous and unfounded arguments about those who want to reform drug laws – they say they are all in the pay of multi millionaire business people who have vested interest in reform. Such claims undermine the seriousness with which their arguments can be taken.
No one who feels strongly enough to campaign about drugs for a living is rolling in money as far as I can tell – regardless of their opinion on the direction of progress.
The drug debate needs to be kept on a sensible, evidence-based level. Wild unproven assertions will do nothing to help people with sound arguments engender healthy progress.
Cara
most people believe this . prohibition has its supporters who what and why? the answer = they must have a vested interest . so who has a vested interest ? answer the dealers and those they pay to keep the business going so if you support prohibition you support crime simple as that even a closed mind can see that
Has anyone every had a cannabis cigarette got into a row then attacked people with a chain saw ? The answer is no but what happened recently in England when a man was drunk and got threw out of a pub ? He went home got his chain saw came back to the pub and attacked people , oh the joys of legal alcohol . And while he was attacking people the police were kicking some poor blokes door in who was lying in front of his tv having a cannabis cigarette , justice served , NOT . Any politician who ignores a scientist when dealing with drugs should be sacked FULL STOP .
never heard such tripe in all my life they really all need educating what about all the people cannabis has helped surely that stands for some thing and a gateway drug i dont think so i have no desire to try anything else and i am sure every pot smoker will say the same
Surprised people aren’t picking up on the comment by Walker re the “firm assurances from government”.
i wonder about that as well
I wonder why the delightful Mary B didn’t invite a representative from CLEAR?
Cannabis Skunk Sense is a sham charity, focused on the distribution of false science and scaremongering. It does not use evidence in its arguments except when it is out of date, superseded or falsified. CLEAR is pursuing a complaint with the Charity Commission about its activities.
Charles Walker has been duped by Mary Brett and, to his eternal shame, said in the House of Commons last year that cocaine is a more suitable drug for children than cannabis. This, of course, is dangerous idiocy. Children should not be using any drugs.
I am perturbed that Know Drugs should give space to this bigoted, dishonest group and the people involved in it. There are legitimate and reasonable arguments that can be made against cannabis but these people are in the business of disinformation. They do not deserve any respect or to be involved in the debate. There are others, far more intelligent and honourable who should be given the opportunity to present the “anti” argument.
walker was very quick to be taken in with all the evidence around him he chooses to believe this modern day witch finder general . he knows what he is doing what we need to do is find out why and tell the world
The only sham group Peter Reynolds is your political party CLEAR, you haven’t stood in any election and you claim to be the leader of a political party, You also are a bankrupt with a criminal conviction for fraud and you have also been to prison for an assault on a previous partner
Your party haven’t issued any audited accounts, 17 Members of Parliament have removed you from their friends list because of the racist comments made in your blogs, so you calling this group is a fine example that people in glass houses etc………….
Peter Reynolds is embaressed and triies to hide his past and I can provide proof of all the claims in this post
Swings and roundabouts this. Especialy towards mental health.
Why does cannabis work for people with mental health issues? The answer is simple THC is a natural SSRI performing the exact same funtion as all SSRI’s .. it lowers the endocannabinoid AEA. but with a differance it also contains CBD even if it is just a trace level 0.2%. I know this because since the age of 11 ive had mental health issues so did my brother. differance is though I went down the legal prescription route he turned to alcohol and just about any other drug he could get his hands on. eventualy picking up a heroin addiction while in a court school run by a local council. For me a life of prescribed drugs that took me away from myself 25 years of legal medication has all but destroyed my mind my memory as well as other boderly functioning. So I gave up most of them for the dreaded cannabis/skunk/whatever silly name you want to give it.(skunkNo1 is from the 70′s)
My doctor agrees with my dessision to use cannabis as hes now dealing with an effect of the SSRI’s that cant be cured. He says he would prescribe me whole cannabis if he could. His greatest of concerns is that I use street cannabis which has unknown levels of CBD and THC. Which is not the case as I told him the UK is now full of caregivers and small time producers that are happy to grow a plant or 2 extra of the right strains 1-1 .
I do fully agree that it can be unwise for the young to use it especialy if they have mental health issues, but then so is prozac that boast a teen suicide rate of 1 in 200, but as many posters have said Education is the key. But so is a controled environment of sales and supply. As at this point in time there is no one to say no as there is with alcohol and tabbaco both highly regulated via age controls…
Plus how do these folks get around GW pharma who grow super skunk…http://cannabis.net/cannabis-seed/index.html
Herman Hesse
-Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges obey the laws. Others sense their own laws within them.
Friedrich Nietzsche
-Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong.
Albert Einstein
-The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
Abraham Lincoln
-Prohibition… goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
Chaim Weizmann
-A law is something which must have a moral basis, so that there is an inner compelling force for every citizen to obey.
Baruch Spinoza
-All laws which can be violated without doing any one any injury is laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of men that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men’s thoughts the more toward those very objects, for we always strive toward what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have… He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.
you get the idea
The author wrote: “I asked whether the Committee would be issuing a statement in response to the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform statement and Walker’s response was ‘The good news is that most people who sign these letters don’t work in Parliament, so their votes don’t count. A list of names on a piece of paper doesn’t count for anything.”
Ouch that does not sound very democratic at all!.
“A list of names on a piece of paper doesn’t mean anything”
I would agree when that list is a list of people wanting to be elected to parliament on a voting paper.
how come this Gov set up a website for e-petitions if “A list etc”
at any point did anyone talk about what the real science of cannabis is saying? you know the doctors and people like that? and has anyone looked who is behind this little prohibition cabal they seem to have a lot of power to call the shots over everyone . what will we do when America drops prohibition ? then we will be left in a position of no control at all its time to get the drug problem under control only by regulating it will we control strength and purity and only by controlling it will we protect everyone
I see Peter Reynolds has replied to this thread.
For those CLEAR members who are reporting to this thread as comment warriors, please have a listen to Dopefiend 303: http://dopecast.libsyn.com/webpage/dopecast303
And also Sarah McCulloch’s new blog post – http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/blog/2012/02/15/peter-reynolds-vs-everyon/
Peter Reynolds stated “I am perturbed that Know Drugs should give space to this bigoted, dishonest group ” The same could be said of Clear under your “leadership” if there is a grain of truth to the links posted by Anne methinks
Terry, there is no need to control the “strength” of cannabis unless you subscribe to the prohibitionist myth
about “skunk”, the scare stories about increased potency have been thoroughly debunked by Ben Goldacre
and are not supported by any real evidence, in reality and according to the latest figures cannabis strength
has increased by only 4-5% increase in THC but even then only in a limited number of samples, not all cannabis is “skunk” and not all cannabis named as “skunk” is potent, apart from anything else “skunk” the variety has been available since the early 80s and has been around for 30 odd years, the whole point of labelling
skunk as “super strong” was to convince the older generation whom smoked cannabis in their youth with no
ill effect that the “new” cannabis was stronger than what they had sampled and was a danger to the mental health of users, so we step back to the “Reefer Madness” propaganda of the 30s but with updated nomenclature, now it is “Cannabis Psychosis” so if it was strong enough in the 1930s to make you insane
why did it drop in strength through the 60s and 70s when current government and cabinet members
were experimenting with it at university?, alleged differing potency does not excuse their hypocrisy and the fact that they broke the law the same as the rest of us, they say they are entitled to privacy but we are not?,
entitled to dabble in drugs without any stigma attached because they allege it was weak and a mere frivolous
harmless pastime?, so weak that an entire subculture sprang from 60s drug use even though the prohibitionists tell us they were smoking weak ditch weed???, strong enough to send you insane through the 30s,40s and 50s went all weak during the 60s and 70s then regained its strength from the 80s onward,
I do not need science to tell me that the case for “super strong skunk” is quite laughable and totally ridiculous
from all angles.
These people are ignorant, authoritarian blowhards.
They are the ones who need to be educated about drugs: about the benefits, as well as the harms (the actual harms, not all the made-up ones)
Gateway “thoery” has been disproven. There is no conclusive evidence that taking one drug leads to another drug. All studies show there is no set progression in drug-taking, but that the pattern of drug-taking is opportunistic, that is, a user will use whatever happens to be available. Since all illicit substances are currently marketed by underground black-market dealers, they will often have more than one such substance available. This is entirely the fault of prohibition, and under a system of regulation, cannabis will be much less available to children, and safer in general.
Know Drugs said: “Many Prohibitionists (or Preventionists as they prefer to be called)… ” Hah! LOLOLOLZ!!!! And torturers prefer to be called “information retrieval specialists.”
These people are anti-preventionists. Since prohibition began, there has been an unprecedented explosion of drug use. Every nation that has liberalized drug laws has had a reduction in overall use and in drug-related problems such as the spread of HIV. Therefore, prohibitionists cannot, in honesty, be called preventionists. They are in favor of prohibition, therefore, “prohibitionist” is the correct term, and they need to accept it.
Ooooo, aren’t you scarey. Cannabis lulls you into the false idea that its good to be stoned each and every day, I know, I did it for years. Funny things is I would never have thought being mildly drunk all day was a good plan. Ok so you can arguably be more functional on weed but as I heard it said somewhere, “it will rob you of your ambition”…not everyone, but most regular people with dwindle and deminish in the fug of weed smoke they surround themselve in everyday. Like all drugs, a little here and there and not all the time is the best approach.
AnonieMouse, as you should know you cannot just say ‘Cannabis’, same as you can’t just say ‘Alcohol’, which Alcohol, which Cannabis? Whisky by the pint? etc
Cannabis is strain dependant, as I am sure you are aware, get the right strain and you will be scrubbing the floors. I built the extension to our house stoned every day, from dawn to dusk.
I own a drug testing lab in Virginia and I appreciate the views and information I read on KnowDrugs.net. It assists me in communicating with the people who come in to be tested and the employers who hire us to do pre-screening and employment screens. This discussion and the stories like Richards will continue and this is a great place for people like me to come for information.