cannabisnews.com: Expert Advisers Threaten Revolt Against Clarke 





Expert Advisers Threaten Revolt Against Clarke 
Posted by CN Staff on January 14, 2006 at 08:23:48 PT
By James Randerson, Science Correspondent
Source: Guardian Unlimited
United Kingdom -- Members of a top drug advisory panel who wrote a secret report to the home secretary on cannabis may resign if the government reclassifies the drug to class B, the Guardian has learned.They are concerned that Charles Clarke is considering upgrading cannabis and say this would be in direct contradiction to the findings of their unpublished report. They say such a move would set a "damaging precedent", and that their report - which the Guardian has seen - explicitly rules out reclassification.
Lord Victor Adebowale, director of the drug treatment charity Turning Point and member of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), said: "I am increasingly concerned about the politicisation of this - the playing to the gallery." He said it would be "very serious" for the home secretary to ignore the council's advice."This wasn't a group of long-haired ex-cannabis smokers. These are some of the best pharmacologists in the country with worldwide reputations," he said. "He's basically saying he's got no confidence in their opinion."In recommending that the drug remain at class C, the report says: "The council does not advise that the classification of cannabis-containing products should be changed on the basis of the result of recent research into the effects on the development of psychoses. Although it is unquestionably harmful, its harmfulness does not equate to that of other class B substances both at the level of the individual or society."It recommends maintaining the status quo for three reasons: the risk of developing mental illness from smoking cannabis is very small; the harm caused by the drug is substantially less than other class B substances, such as amphetamines; and reclassification has not resulted in an increase in use by adolescents and young adults.Last week, Mr Clarke hinted that he was considering a U-turn. "The thing that worries me most [about the downgrading of cannabis] is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is," he told the Times. "I'm very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong."Leslie King, a member of the ACMD's technical committee and former head of the Forensic Science Service's drugs intelligence unit, said that if the home secretary ignored the panel's advice, it would have "considerable ramifications" for the ACMD's credibility. Professor Leslie Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University and ACMD member, said that if Mr Clarke ignored the committee's advice it would set an "unfortunate precedent".Asked whether council members might consider resigning he said: "I can't speak for my colleagues, but I would think quite carefully about whether it is worth devoting a lot of effort and time to this type of exercise if your advice is going to be ignored."Another ACMD member, Martin Barnes, chief executive of Drugscope, agreed that resignations might follow. "Our view is that if the government chooses not to follow the advisory council's recommendation they've got to really have pretty compelling reasons not to."· Reclassification 'would be playing to gallery' · Authors of secret report threaten resignation Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: James Randerson, Science CorrespondentPublished: Saturday, January 14, 2006Copyright: 2006 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles: Confused About Cannabis? You Bethttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21459.shtmlClarke Paves Way for U-Turn on Cannabis http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21454.shtmlClarke Urged Not To Reclassify Cannabishttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21448.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #17 posted by mayan on January 15, 2006 at 06:38:14 PT
Revolt
When the British Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs starts ripping Blair Co. then there is certainly a little revolution brewing. Blair has the political capital of a wounded tree sloth and grows weaker by the day. He, like Bush, can only feed off the fear of the populace and wishes the days would slide by a little faster before everyone catches on to his heinous crimes. No, the days can't pass fast enough for Tony and George! And why don't we ever hear the term "revolt" over here? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Had Enough on January 15, 2006 at 03:51:29 PT
GCW - timing is everything
They say timing is everything. There has been a ban on smokers going on for a while. At first it was just here and there, now it is everywhere. I had to go out to the county tax office the other day, and there is a sign saying no smoking within 50 ft of the building.Speaking of timing Yesterday was Rev. Martin Niemoller’s birthday.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by afterburner on January 14, 2006 at 23:18:20 PT
What a Crock
"This wasn't a group of long-haired ex-cannabis smokers. These are some of the best pharmacologists in the country with worldwide reputations," he said. "He's basically saying he's got no confidence in their opinion."So, scientific researchers that have used tobacco are not eligible to recommend health policy. Coffee drinkers are not eligible to pass judgement on coffee. Ditto for tea drinkers, chocolate eaters, alcohol drinkers. Scientists that eat food or take pharmaceuticals are ineligible to study such things.The insistence of certain government officials knows no reason, relying instead on fears and other emotional dysfunctions. They should be ashamed of themselves. Instead, they hang their dirty laundry out to dry for all the world to see. Their desire to appease the misinformed, the ignorant, the superstitious, and the prejudiced is appalling!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by The GCW on January 14, 2006 at 19:55:38 PT
This is relevant in My neighborhood.
Where I live, there has been a movement to prohibit people from smoking cigs in bars and eating establishments... People support it...But now, they are trying to prohibit people from smoking on ski lifts or in lift lines or on the mountain at all.Remember America has to always have a prohibition and perhaps for Us to end cannabis prohibiton We must replace it with another; how about cig prohibition?The killing; black market; etc. etc. will continue but the name of the prohibited will change...Poll:Should Summit County ski resorts ban smoking from lift lines? 
 Yes 
 No
 
http://www.summitdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage-0-Resist 'Boulderizing' Summit Countyhttp://www.summitdaily.com/article/20060113/LETTER/101130033This letter to the editor, that I read this morning made Me think of that Rev. Martin Niemoller wisdom; read and see why.It is perfect timing for the family here to bring up these relevant things.LogosThe Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 14, 2006 at 19:17:30 PT
Related Article from The Observer UK
Police Chief Steps Into Cannabis Row ***As a decision looms on reclassifying the drug, Brian Paddick says 'I didn't want it downgraded' Mark Townsend and Gaby HinsliffSunday, January 15, 2006The senior police officer who was said to have inspired the government's controversial reclassification of cannabis has revealed for the first time that he has always opposed downgrading the drug.The then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, credited the liberal policing policies of Brian Paddick, now the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in the decision to reclassify cannabis. However, Paddick said that the Home Office never asked for his views on the issue and added that he has always believed the move was 'unnecessary' and would cause more damage than good.Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will decide within days whether to order a U-turn on the relaxation of cannabis laws in January 2004, because of fears over its link to mental illness. Clarke also faces a parliamentary inquiry into the way drugs are classified in Britain. The investigation - which could open the way for a much wider shake-up of drugs laws - will examine not only the evidence surrounding cannabis and its effect on mental health but that on other substances, including cocaine.The chair of the all-party Commons science and technology committee, Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: 'What we want to know is why did Charles Clarke say Blunkett was wrong, and what's the basis of the evidence he's putting forward to support that. My private reading in discussion with a number of experts is that nothing has changed. There's significantly more evidence to say that alcohol has more of a deleterious effect on the brain than cannabis.'His inquiry will call as witnesses both Clarke and the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), a panel of scientists which assesses drugs for the Home Office and whose latest report concludes that the evidence linking cannabis to psychotic symptoms cannot be considered definitive. The advisory council does not support reclassification of cannabis to Class B and members of the panel have threatened to resign should Clarke ignore their recommendations.Blunkett had asked the ACMD to investigate the reclassification of cannabis in 2001 in a request interpreted as a direct response to Paddick's cannabis policy in Lambeth, south London. Paddick, who was then commander of Lambeth, had introduced a pilot scheme which allowed officers to give people found carrying a small amount of cannabis a verbal warning. The initiative was designed to allow police officers to tackle harder Class A drugs such as crack cocaine, but contrary to the Home Secretary's belief reclassifying cannabis was never part of Paddick's agenda.Paddick, 47, said: 'I never discussed the Lambeth pilot with the Home Office. For people to say that it was my idea that led to the reclassification of cannabis ... well, I never spoke to the Home Office at all about it. I don't think cannabis should have been downgraded. All that should have been done was guidance from Home Office to chief police officers saying that you should consider allowing officers to seize and warn or arrest depending on the circumstances. Reclassification was unnecessary.'Although Paddick's 'softly, softly' scheme in Lambeth was motivated by the need to liberate more officers for targeting Class A dealers, he claims a Home Office decision may dissuade officers from concentrating on tackling crack cocaine and heroin suppliers.'The idea of diverting police resources away from cannabis to more serious offences has now become further confused because cannabis warnings count the same as a conviction for rape or murder under figures for the number of offences brought to justice,' he said.'Effectively, it means that a cannabis warning on the street is one of the quickest and easiest ways of achieving targets that police forces are under increasing pressure to meet,' said Paddick, who believes ministers should concentrate on reminding users that cannabis is illegal. 'With a maximum of two years in prison it probably means that there are sufficient powers to deal with problems relating to cannabis.'Copyright: Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1686874,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by siege on January 14, 2006 at 19:01:45 PT
O T GENETICALLY MODIFIED PEAS 
CAUSED DANGEROUS IMMUNE RESPONSESUMMARY:
Genetically modified (GM) peas under development created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide. When this protein is produced naturally in beans, it does not elicit a response from mice. When produced in the GM peas, however, it did cause a reaction. Using sensitive testing methods, scientists discovered subtle differences between the bean and the GM proteins—the added sugar chains were slightly different. They speculate that this difference caused the immune reactions. Based on the results of the study, the Australian developers abandoned their 10-year, $2 million project.http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffr
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 14, 2006 at 18:16:49 PT
Cannabis Prohibition...
... is crumbling world wide right before the marijuana haters' eyes. And the only thing they can do is continue to spout the same old lies, in denial I suppose.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Had Enough on January 14, 2006 at 17:21:37 PT
Martin Niemoeller
Martin Niemoeller was a Protestant pastor born January 14, 1892, in Lippstadt, Westphalia. He was a submarine commander in World War I. He was anti-communist and initially supported the Nazis until the church was made subordinate to state authority. In 1934, he started the Pastors’ Emergency League to defend the church. Hitler became angered by Niemoeller’s rebellious sermons and popularity and had him arrested on July 1, 1937. He was tried the following year and sentenced to seven months in prison and fined. After his release, Hitler ordered him arrested again. he spent the next seven years in concentration camps in “protective custody.“ He was liberated in 1945 and was elected President of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau in 1947. He held the title until 1964. He was also a President of the World Council of Churches in the 1960’s. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/niemoeller.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Had Enough on January 14, 2006 at 16:46:09 PT
Rev. Martin Niemoller
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by WolfgangWylde on January 14, 2006 at 16:03:05 PT
Found this good for a laugh...
....Rev. Neimoller would be proud.Scotts Miracle-Gro plan to fire smokers COLUMBUS, Ohio - Beginning next October, smoking will be significantly more expensive for employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. Lighting up, even at home, will cost them their jobs. Many other companies also are focusing on smokers, whether by raising their health-insurance premiums or not hiring them. Scotts took dramatic action because it wants to hold down health-insurance costs by "helping people live healthy lifestyles," said James Hagedorn, chairman and chief executive. The Marysville company pays for medical claims using its own funds, "so why would we admit someone into this environment when they're passing risk along to everyone else?" he asked. "Our view is we shouldn't and we won't." 
Scotts Miracle-Gro plan to fire smokers 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on January 14, 2006 at 13:31:59 PT
The Party Line about cannabis
This is taking the "The Party Line about cannabis" to the the brink of the Lemming Party.These Tories, are they willing to destroy the fabric of their society in the name of cannabis?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by observer on January 14, 2006 at 13:21:40 PT
Political Expediency
Another ACMD member, Martin Barnes, chief executive of Drugscope, agreed that resignations might follow. "Our view is that if the government chooses not to follow the advisory council's recommendation they've got to really have pretty compelling reasons not to."Compelling reasons? Let me count a few. The Yanks compel you to demonise cannabis users, all the more? The latest insta-polls show 4 of 5 elderly tory voters prefer to "get tougher" on "drug abusers", and these are compelling numbers to Party analyists? Or perhaps, "We've been jailing cannabis users for so very many years, to stop now would mean we should have to admit we've been lying about cannabis all along. We're simply compelled to maintain The Party Line about cannabis, or we should lose support at the polls."I believe power-worshiping politicians like Blair think along these lines:Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for The Party, that cannabis users should suffer for The Party, and that the whole Party perish not...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 14, 2006 at 13:15:10 PT
global_warming 
I think it will change as more free thinking people from the 60s and from this younger generation that appears to think much like the people in the 60s speak up. The young man from the Colorado Inititative gives me hope and those who never strayed from earth related issues get a say. Then it will happen I hope.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by global_warming on January 14, 2006 at 12:56:41 PT
hey Fom
Do you think this reefer madness in the governing circles will ever change?I understand what the above articles are saying, in the light of intelligent reasoning, the government is willing to ignore science, knowledge and just plain old human decency in its consideration to reverse the earlier decisions of downgrading the severity of cannabis to class c.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 14, 2006 at 10:11:40 PT
Transform: TDPF - UK
Cannabis Reclassification: Experts Say No To Reversal of 2004 Decision***The Guardian newspaper reports today (cannabis law p.3 Jan 14 2006) that the Advisory Council on The Misuse of Drugs has recommended against a reversal of the 2004 descision to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C. As widely predicted and leaked to the media the ACMD have stood by there original recommendation, even after reviewing new evidence as directed by the Home Secretary in a letter, unusually made public, shortly before the 2005 general election. The ACMD report says "The [committee] considers that cannabis products should remain class C. At worst, the risk to an individual of developing a schizophreniform illness as a result of using cannabis is very small. The harmfulness of cannabis, to the individual, remains substantially less than the harmfulness caused by substances currently controlled under the act as class B."Guardian sources said that only 1 of the 36 committee members voted to shift cannabis back to class B. The Guardian also notes that resignations are being threatened by committee members if the Home Secretary ignores the advice and reclassifies regardless (which he is free to do as the committee's recommendations are not binding). The mental health charity Rethink has also been strongly advocating no change in the classification, but rather a concerted eductaion effort to inform young people of the potential risks of cannabis use. 
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_LatestNews_14_01_06_cannabis%20reclassification.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 14, 2006 at 09:42:46 PT
Video Link
Former Roseville Medical Marijuana Distributor Indicted http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=15323
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 14, 2006 at 08:29:02 PT
Related Article from The Guardian Unlimited
Panel Says Link with Mental Illness is 'Very Small' ***By James RandersonSaturday January 14, 2006UK -- New scientific evidence suggests a causal link between cannabis use and long-term psychotic symptoms, according to the government's top drug advisory committee. But in a draft report to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, seen by the Guardian, the committee says that the risks are not high enough to support reclassification as class B.The report says: "The [committee] considers that cannabis products should remain class C. At worst, the risk to an individual of developing a schizophreniform illness as a result of using cannabis is very small. The harmfulness of cannabis, to the individual, remains substantially less than the harmfulness caused by substances currently controlled under the act as class B." A source close to the committee said only one member out of 36 voted to shift cannabis back to class B.The report said: "Collectively, the weight of evidence from these studies suggests an association between cannabis use, and the development of schizophrenia or a schizophreniform disorder, that is causal ... The best current estimate of the populations-attributable risk of schizophreniform illness due to cannabis (the percentage reduction in the prevalence of the condition if the use of cannabis could be totally eliminated) is about 8-10%."In March, Mr Clarke asked the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to look at the decision to declassify cannabis from B to C and consider evidence that cannabis available in Britain is increasing in potency. He directed it to two recent population-based studies suggesting a link between cannabis use and mental health problems.On the potency question, the ACMD concluded: "There is no evidence that, during this period [1995-2005], the potency of cannabis resin has changed in any significant way ... There has, however, been an increase in the potency in sinsemilla." This refers to intensively grown super-strength varieties such as skunk.Since 2002 a handful of population-based studies have pointed to cannabis being a causal factor in schizophrenia and the development of more subtle psychotic symptoms."Each one of these studies has its own deficiencies, but the impressive thing is that they all point in the same direction," said Robin Murray, a psychiatrist at King's College London who wrote some of the papers. They suggest that cannabis increases the chance of a user developing psychotic symptoms two- or fourfold, he said. The risk of lung cancer for cigarette smokers is 10-15 times.He believes that reclassifying cannabis was a mistake, but he accepts that the scientific case is far from watertight. Cannabis use and schizophrenia could be linked by a third factor, perhaps cannabis users being more likely to use another drug that causes mental health problems, something the new studies try to take into account.Others are sceptical of the new studies. "The total number of people involved is very, very small," said Professor Leslie Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University and ACMD member. "If you look at any of those studies, a very tiny proportion of the cohort actually develop psychotic illness that might be attributable to cannabis."Research by Cécile Henquet and her colleagues at the University of Maastricht was also considered by the council. "The consensus is that cannabis is not harmless. It is much more harmful than we expected, but it is not that cannabis in itself can cause psychosis," she said. ""Apparently some people have a sensitive brain to cannabis exposure."Group Trials:Study group: Swedish army conscripts 
Size: Around 50,000 
When: Originally 1988, but updated in 2002 
Finding: Heavy cannabis users at 18 years old were 6.7 times more likely than non-users to be diagnosed with schizophrenia 27 years later.Study group: Netherlands Mental Health Survey 
Size: Around 4,000 
When: 2002 
Finding: Cannabis users nearly three times more likely to experience psychotic symptoms 3 years later.Study group: New Zealand cohort studied for 20 years
Size: Around 1,000 
When: 2003 
Finding: Users dependent on cannabis at 18 were 3.7 times more likely to get psychotic symptoms.Study group: Individuals born in Dunedin, New Zealand
Size: Around 750 
When: 2002 
Finding: 10.3% of cannabis users aged 15 were diagnosed with schizophrenia-like conditions at 26, against 3% of non-users.Copyright: 2006 Guardian Newspapers Limitedhttp://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1686334,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment