Cameron On Cannabis Part 6
David Cameron’s mistakes about university places, immigration and, of course, cannabis have been on my mind over the Easter holiday. Given the huge resources he has to ensure that his information is correct, it’s not really acceptable for our prime minister to be so error prone. If the problem is that his attempts at spin are not working and he’s deliberately telling untruths but being caught out, well perhaps that’s even more worrying.
Whichever may be the case, and I’m ready to give Mr Cameron the benefit of the doubt about his sincerity, we are entitled to call him to account. I decided to give him another prod about the errors and mistakes he’s making about cannabis.
Dear Mr Cameron,
I refer to my last letter of 5th April 2011.
The statements you made about cannabis in your Al Jazeera YouTube interview were inaccurate and misleading. Please will you now correct them?
“Incredibly damaging…very, very toxic…leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems”
This is simply not true Mr Cameron. Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD, your chief drugs advisor, is on the record, repeatedly, stating that cannabis is very, very low in toxicity and relatively safe. Furthermore, all the experts agree that the risks to mental health are very, very small, certainly much less than alcohol or tobacco.
On the medicinal use of cannabis you said:
“…the science and medical authorities…are free to make independent determinations about that.”
This is also untrue Mr Cameron. The Home Office stands obstinately in the way of medicinal use despite overwhelming, peer reviewed scientific evidence. It denies the relief of a safe and inexpensive medicine to thousands who are trapped in pain, suffering and disability. This is a cruel policy and a disgraceful shame on our nation.
Please will you now correct these untruths Mr Cameron? They were your words. You were not advised by the Home Office. CLEAR represents the interests of at least six million regular users of cannabis in Britain, thousands of whom use it as medicine. We are reasonable, responsible, respectable citizens and taxpayers and we are entitled to insist that our prime minister speaks the truth
Recently, you also spoke misleading words about cannabis and mental health on “Jamie’s Dream School” and you said that “…if you legalise drugs you will make them even more prevalent than they are”, yet this too is contradicted by all the evidence in Portugal, Holland and the USA. Even the No 10 Strategy Unit Drugs Policy Project reported in 2003 that “There is no causal relationship between availability and incidence…problematic drug use is not driven by changes in availability or price.”
This time though you were talking directly to young people, those who your government says it is most important to send the correct message to. Mr Cameron, the only message that government consistently sends to young people is that it does not tell them the truth about drugs.
Please Mr Cameron, we are entitled to expect that you tell the truth and that you correct errors when they are made. These statements were not matters of opinion nor of interpretation, They are determined by scientific evidence. Will you please now correct them?
Written by Peter Reynolds
April 26, 2011 at 07:26
Tagged with David Cameron, cannabis, Holland, YouTube, Home Office, taxpayer, evidence, medicine, alcohol, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, tobacco, prime minister, ACMD, drugs policy, USA, immigration, medicinal cannabis, mental health, Professor Leslie Iversen, Portugal, Al Jazeera, Cannabis Law Reform, CLEAR, Jamie’s Dream School, university, No 10 Strategy Unit3 bloggers like this post.
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
It is extremely disappointing that politicians, civil servants and people paid by us do not feel compelled to answer our questions. Are there any other instances in which the employee can bluntly ignore the requests of their employer and get away with it? I’m wondering whether there is an equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it comes to forcing our employees to answer our legitimate questions? Do you know the answer, or know somebody who knows?
Good letter Peter only one thing you forgot, Cameron is on record as saying that herbal cannabis has no medical benefit, yet the reply I received from Earl Howe the Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Quality and the Minister responsible for pharmacy policy at the Department of health makes it clear that there is little or no real difference except Sativex is contaminated with two alcohols and peppermint neither of which has any medical value, the only thing missing in Sativex is 10% of the original plant material ie fibre. Only one other difference remains the level of CBD in Sativex obtained from a different strain of skunk than the one produced for its THC content. The irony being that if GW left its high THC plant in their grow room a bit longer the THC would degrade to CBD just like the ones that come out of my grow room.
its kinda like trying to get a compulsive liar to start telling the truth,,,or blood out of a stone.Im really puzzled by their approach ,considering the real facts are here to stay and theyre insisting on sticking to some medieval beliefs,all the while,exposing themselves as utterly un-trustworthy,,very very puzzling.
April 26, 2011 at 10:47
Leave a Reply