cannabisnews.com: Half of Cannabis Smoked by Britons is Homegrown





Half of Cannabis Smoked by Britons is Homegrown
Posted by FoM on February 10, 2002 at 19:27:18 PT
By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent
Source: Daily Telegraph 
Half of the cannabis smoked in Britain is being grown at people's homes rather than being imported by drugs barons, according to new research. Figures to be released this week by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, which produces statistics used by the Government for policy planning, will show that 47 per cent of cannabis used in Britain in 2001 was home-grown by the user or a friend. This figure compares with 12.9 per cent in 1994. 
The average cannabis smoker also uses almost twice as much of the drug - 44.5 grammes a year - as in 1994, when the figure was 24.8 grammes.Critics say that the figures prove that the Government's relaxation of the laws on cannabis possession has led to a steep rise in the number of smokers growing their own supplies without fear of arrest, and believe that a message is being sent out that the drug is safe.Baroness Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University who has produced medical evidence that the drug is harmful, said that regular cannabis use could leave smokers with serious health problems. She said: "What we have to tell young people is that they are tampering with the most special part of their bodies - their brains, their minds - over a long time." Critics also believe that relaxing the laws on cannabis has fuelled a move to harder drugs.In June last year, the Metropolitan Police announced that in Lambeth, south London, officers would not arrest anyone caught with a small amount of cannabis but instead would caution them. The Police Federation, which represents all ranks below superintendent, later claimed that the six-month policing experiment had failed. Fred Broughton, the federation's chairman, told the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee last month that the scheme had failed to cut drug use and cannabis was being smoked openly on the streets of Brixton. Crack dealers are becoming more active as a result, he said.A leading Government adviser on drugs told The Telegraph, however, that cannabis users should be allowed to grow dope plants in their own homes without any fear of being prosecuted.Roger Howard, a member of the Home Office Advisory Group on Drugs, said that as David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has announced that cannabis possession is to be downgraded from a class B to a class C offence, it made sense to allow people to grow it.Mr Howard said: "As the Government moves towards making small-scale cannabis possession a non-arrestable offence, I hope it will resolve this contradiction by differentiating in law between small-scale cultivation for personal use and large-scale production controlled by organised crime."Last night Janet Betts, the mother of Leah Betts who died after taking ecstasy on her 18th birthday in Essex in 1995, condemned the suggestion.She said: "It is unbelievable that a Government adviser could recommend changing the law on cultivation of cannabis in the home. Cannabis is a dangerous drug."Would you like your dentist or bus driver to be using Australian super skunk cannabis that could blow your socks off? Just because it is in your own home does not mean that it is all right."Newshawk: puff_tuffSource: Daily Telegraph (UK)Author: David Bamber, Home Affairs CorrespondentPublished: February 10, 2002Copyright: 2002 Telegraph Group LimitedContact: dtletters telegraph.co.ukWebsite: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Related Articles:The £6.6bn Illegal Trade http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11958.shtmlMet Plan To Extend Softly, Softly Drug Scheme http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11957.shtmlThreat of Police Revolt Over Cannabis Policy http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11956.shtmlBritish Cops Issue Marijuana Reporthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11818.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by magicspells on May 28, 2002 at 15:23:52 PT
Educate
Cant these people just keep thier noses out?I dont want to know what they get up to in their freetime,even if it may harm them,its down to them.If my dentist,bus driver or pilot want a joint,so what?Its down to education and choice.The only reason the money goes to terrorists and gangsters is because its still illigal.If you could go to a shop to by your 'Australian super skunk' you wouldn't need to mix with these gangsters and naughty types,and not line thier pockets with cash!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on February 11, 2002 at 06:52:59 PT:
greenfield's "science" exposed as fraud
See:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1435.a04.html
There, you can find a point by point refutation of her claims.
Also note that not even the US ONDCP claims the false positions that Greenfield suggests.
See: http://198.65.147.195/drug_info/drugs_marijuana.html
And note that the good Baroness has a history of mis-stating the facts about marijuana:From:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/panorama/newsid_1638000/1638259.stm
Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, famous neurologist with 14 degrees, warned us of the dangers of messing with brain chemistry. she was interviewed recently by Radio Times and said the following:"Not really. I tried a joint in the sixties, but couldn't stand sitting in corners giggling. I'm the manic type, who likes zapping around. I drink, but given I like to do things in excess, I put very fierce rules on myself- never at lunch, never by myself I used to smoke heavily and drank coffee perhaps every 20 minutes, which is why I have mint tea now. I am so anti drugs. The big risk is you'll change the person you are. Blowing your mind is exactly what you're doing. I oppose the view that cannabis is OK. You need only 0.7mg - as opposed to 2,000mg of alcohol - to achieve an observable effect in the brain. People don't realise that." 
Of course, this only proves that Greenfield is lying to herself, the public or both. Alcohol is a POISON, so the fact that it takes more to acheive the desired result (in her case, I see that means a heady buzz) merely demonstrates that marijuana is safer. As I and others have pointed out here, the strongest forms of marijuana are safer to smoke because less carbon monoxide, etc. is created per titrated "dose".
But wait, there is more. From:
http://www.cerebral.org/Maps/msg03221.html
The problem with reviews such as those by Baroness Greenfield (Comment,
July 14) and Dr Thomas Stuttaford (Times 2, July 31) is that they are
partisan and selective. Professor Greenfield is an eminent scientist whose
views are to be taken seriously, but when talking about "severe shrinkage
and death of brain cells" on exposure to cannabis she omitted to refer to
other papers which discuss potent neuroprotective properties of cannabis
constituents.
 And from:
http://www.maranathacommunity.org.uk/topicalissues/newcannabis/brain.html
Baroness Greenfield, who is a Professor of Pharmacology and Director of the Royal Institution, has warned about the dangers of cannabis. She says, " We know that under experimental conditions exposure to cannabis can cause a severe shrinkage and, indeed, death of brain cells - most notably in key areas such as the hippocampus, related to memory. Small surprise then that we see impairments in memory and thinking with cannabis use". Professor Greenfield says "Drugs work on the connections between brain cells, changing the efficiency of how one cell communicates with another. By working at the chemical locks and keys that enable a transmitter released from one brain cell to interact with the next cell along, drugs can tamper with the message that is sent". She said "Cannabis spliffs are more pernicious than ordinary cigarettes - they contain higher levels of carcinogens, tar and other toxins. The primary mechanism of the action of alcohol on the brain is quite different from that of cannabis. Alcohol works mainly on the walls of the brain cells, making them more sluggish and less efficient at sending the electrical blips. However, cannabis works on its very own receptors; this means that it has a much more direct means for changing, not just the short term signalling from one cell to another, but also a greater chance of influencing long-term changes within the brain. The biochemical potential is there, therefore, for cannabis to have a more targeted and longer-lasting effect on brain functions". (Article in The Times 14.7.01)
As if alcohol is safer. If that were true, then where are the hundreds of thousands of annual deaths, as we see with alcohol and exponentially more with tobacco?
Tobacco smokers smoke many times more more carbon monoxide, benzene, benzopyrene and toluene to acheive their desired level of the poisonous drug, nicotine. 
There is so much credible scince refuting Baroness Greenfield's claims that it is amazing that anyone gives her habitual prohibitionist stance against cannabis any credit.
Arrest Prohibition
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on February 11, 2002 at 00:12:30 PT
Greenfield is the only scientist in Britain????
Why does the press continue to treat this harpie as if she is the only scientist qualified to speak on cannabinoid science in the UK?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by green on February 11, 2002 at 00:04:53 PT:
Terrorism
Does that mean that only HALF the cannabis bought MAY have helped fund terrorists? (I think the report excludes outdoor domestic grows as well. Outdoor domestic grows would account for a even greater percentage in the Americas.)'My weed no fund the riches because I can tell it came from the ditches.'WTF is up with this quote? ""Would you like your dentist or bus driver to be using Australian super skunk cannabis that could blow your socks off? Just because it is in your own home does not mean that it is all right.""The dentist is exposed to radiation and heavy metals and bio-hazards on a daily basis. He also has access to many powerful drugs (not to mention tobacco and alcohol). This wealthy man could also afford to purchase any drug on the black market. He could also buy 'super skunk' any day of the week. So what about this 'dentist' could/would be worse or more dangerous if he happened to be growing his OWN cannabis? What kind of flaw are you trying to point out? If its homegrown its safer no matter what. You remove your exposure to the black market. You gaurantee a safe product. So if you dentist is a pothead. Its a GOOD thing if he can grow his own.
HempSense.net
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on February 10, 2002 at 20:05:35 PT
My socks are all full of holes!
"Would you like your dentist or bus driver to be using Australian super skunk cannabis that could blow your socks off? "Have a sherry, dear, and get a grip.Don't even think for a minute about what your dentist and bus driver are doing when you're not there to police them.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment