Re-instate Cannabis BPC as a licensed medicine!

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Why is this idea important?

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Devolve funding of all drugs work to GPs

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Why is this idea important?

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Cannabis: Put it to a referendum!

 The last Government was notably rigid and authoritarian on the matter of cannabis and how its users should be treated. We deserve better. Nothing less than a full public debate and referendum can now correct the memory of Brown's bullying. If the new Government is serious about the Big Society, and about serving not dictating, giving us an early vote on cannabis would be the best possible way to prove it.

 Three recent opinion polls, (the oldest from last December,) show a majority of UK residents oppose prohibition and want change:

http://nwemail.co.uk/news/drugs_survey_legalise_and_crack_down_on_dealers_1_565771?referrerPath=have_your_say

http://mingle-trend.respondi.com/uk/?p=824

http://nwemail.co.uk/news/drugs_survey_legalise_and_crack_down_on_dealers_1_565771?referrerPath=have_your_say

The high level of commenting on cannabis here is further testament to how big an issue this really is.

Transform have done great work on alternatives to prohibition. They and others should be part of a working group devising a fair question or set of questions. Then a short period of public debate  across all the media, and finally a once- and- for- all referendum on the legal status of cannabis.

 

Why is this idea important?

 The last Government was notably rigid and authoritarian on the matter of cannabis and how its users should be treated. We deserve better. Nothing less than a full public debate and referendum can now correct the memory of Brown's bullying. If the new Government is serious about the Big Society, and about serving not dictating, giving us an early vote on cannabis would be the best possible way to prove it.

 Three recent opinion polls, (the oldest from last December,) show a majority of UK residents oppose prohibition and want change:

http://nwemail.co.uk/news/drugs_survey_legalise_and_crack_down_on_dealers_1_565771?referrerPath=have_your_say

http://mingle-trend.respondi.com/uk/?p=824

http://nwemail.co.uk/news/drugs_survey_legalise_and_crack_down_on_dealers_1_565771?referrerPath=have_your_say

The high level of commenting on cannabis here is further testament to how big an issue this really is.

Transform have done great work on alternatives to prohibition. They and others should be part of a working group devising a fair question or set of questions. Then a short period of public debate  across all the media, and finally a once- and- for- all referendum on the legal status of cannabis.

 

Make public health the only priority in setting drugs classifications.

 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was meant to reduce the harms caused by drug use. But the way it has been implemented has failed this purpose, as drugs harms have increased consistently over its forty-year history.

 For no apparent reason, two of the most harmful drugs- alcohol and tobacco, have been exempted from classification. And in recent years, the harms caused by alcohol in particular have increased dramatically. (This drug is now estimated to be costing the UK economy £55 billion per year, as well as at least 20,000 annual avoidable deaths. )

 The first duty of any Government is to protect its people from harm. If there is any other priority in setting drugs classifications than the protection of the public, this is the worst possible betrayal of the people the Government is there to serve.

The last Home Secretary admitted that he did this without apparent shame. He put "other factors" before your health and mine. This is utterly unacceptable. Our lives are not his to play politics with.

Why is this idea important?

 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was meant to reduce the harms caused by drug use. But the way it has been implemented has failed this purpose, as drugs harms have increased consistently over its forty-year history.

 For no apparent reason, two of the most harmful drugs- alcohol and tobacco, have been exempted from classification. And in recent years, the harms caused by alcohol in particular have increased dramatically. (This drug is now estimated to be costing the UK economy £55 billion per year, as well as at least 20,000 annual avoidable deaths. )

 The first duty of any Government is to protect its people from harm. If there is any other priority in setting drugs classifications than the protection of the public, this is the worst possible betrayal of the people the Government is there to serve.

The last Home Secretary admitted that he did this without apparent shame. He put "other factors" before your health and mine. This is utterly unacceptable. Our lives are not his to play politics with.