Text biggerText normal sizeText smaller

Sativex : The Trojan Horse to Permanent Cannabis Prohibition

A serious international political umbrella group for advocates of cannabis law reform Working together towards cannabis pro-legislation worldwide

www.legaliseinternational.com June 18 2011 by Jayelle Farmer

It’s time to fully distinguish the difference between herbal cannabis and cannabis pharm meds

Once again, the political debate on a possible connection between cannabis and psychosis has raised its head - this time, by Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative) in the UK House of Commons, concerning psychosis in young people. [1]

There has been much debate and assertions that modern day "skunk" cannabis is much stronger than the cannabis of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The problem with this debate is that there is no evidence that actually shows what the THC level was at that time. There are some people who actually believe that "skunk" cannabis was deliberately introduced into Britain [1b]

The initial molecular research of THC was accomplished in 1964, by Yehiel Gaoni and Raphael Mechoulam. [2] Mechoulam later commented "I was surprised to find that the active componentís) of cannabis had never been isolated in a pure form and its structure was known only in a general way. A few cannabinoids had been reported but the structure of only one, the psychotropically inactive cannabinol, had been fully elucidated." [3]

As early as 1969, when cannabis was medically researched as a causal factor towards psychosis, NO EVIDENCE was found :

"There is no evidence that this activity is ... producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis requiring medical treatment" [4]

The Politics of Dishonesty

Since 1969, all medical reports concerning cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia that have not matched up to or agreed with the government’s prohibitionist agenda have been ignored. They only want to pay attention to documents that agree with their prohibitionist attitude and agenda - the rest are put aside. If these reports did not exist, then one could say that the government was ignorant (in the true sense of the word.) The fact that such reports DO exist thus shows the dishonest attitudes of successive intransigent governments who seek to make continued false medical claims against cannabis, for the simple reason of keeping the raw cannabis plant in prohibition - for medical users, for recreational users, for all users.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE VOTE INTO POWER. I suggest that we no longer vote for any politician who does not believe that cannabis should be legalised and is not prepared to work to do something about it. WHY DO WE WANT, OR NEED, TO VOTE FOR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE WHOSE POLICIES WILL CONTINUE TO CRIMINALISE CANNABIS USERS ?

The Government Ball Game

Politicians are determined to keep cannabis law reform workers in the defensive position of contradicting false government health assertions with medical links which show that cannabis is not a harmful drug. They come with the hype of reefer madness and we come with the answers. This is the ball game that they want the cannabis law reform movement to play with them.

AND WHY ?

Enter the Trojan Horse

The political opposition against cannabis is not about psychosis, is not about schizophrenia and is not about anything else except world governments’ collusion in their determined protection of Sativex (Nabiximols) and their expected furtherance of cannabis pharmaceutical research and delivery for further illnesses that can benefit from cannabis pharm meds.

The big question : What is the advantage to any government in promoting or protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies in general, or with respect to pharmaceutical cannabis, in particular ?

Governments insist all drugs to be clinically tested for specific illnesses, to be prescribed by doctors, with recommended doses, via pharmacy delivery. This is the official path of drug delivery that all governments follow. They believe that, given time, a whole list of cannabis treatable conditions will be added to the list for which Sativex may be prescribed.

To this end, world governments are now licensing cannabis farming and cannabis pharmaceutical production in the form of Sativex to pharmaceutical companies like GW Pharm, so that cannabis pharm meds can be regulated by the government according to their current model. Governments KNOW that the cannabis law reform campaign is a threat to its pharmaceutical agenda and thus use all means at their disposal - including dishonesty - to keep herbal cannabis in prohibition.

All they have to do is keep campaigners engaged in playing their Ball Game. They do this by making blanket statements such as "illegal drugs are dangerous and will therefore remain illegal" and they refuse to engage in serious debate with campaign group representatives. This has been going on since the 1960’s. Governments know that the legalisation of cannabis would destroy the future regulated cannabis pharm med industry market, which is why they are so determined to keep herbal cannabis in prohibition.

Many unwell people have the sincere wish to be able to grow their own cannabis and self-medicate. They are thus in a different position to recreational cannabis users in that they have the pressing concern of health problems to deal with ; health problems which they know that herbal cannabis can cure, or ameliorate the symptoms of, their illnesses.

Cannabis pharm meds seem to be acceptable to some unwell people but are they acceptable to unwell people who wish to grow their own cannabis as medicine or to people who use cannabis as a recreational drug ? Both of these categories of cannabis users are likely to continue to be prosecuted long after the full roll-out of Sativex [5] and thus need to place themselves in the forefront of the cannabis law reform campaign to expose government lies about herbal cannabis causing schizophrenia and psychosis.

The Legal Origins of the Trojan Horse

GW Pharm were given permission by the Home Office under Section 7 of the original Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) to research and cultivate the cannabis plant. The finer print evolved via The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

"7.-(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations- (a) except from section 3(1)(a) or (b), 4(1)(a) or (b) or 5(1) of this Act such controlled drugs as may be specified in the regulations ; and (b) make such other provision as he thinks fit for the purpose of making it lawful for persons to do things which under any of the following provisions of this Act, that is to say sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1), it would otherwise be unlawful for them to do. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection authorising the doing of any such thing. as is mentioned in that paragraph may in particular provide for the doing of that thing to be lawful- (a) if it is done under and in accordance with the terms of a licence or other authority issued by the Secretary of State and in compliance with any conditions attached thereto ; or (b) if it is done in compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed."

It is under the MoDA 1971 that recognised research facilities are also able to obtain a permit for various forms of medical research into cannabis.

In 1998 the House of Lords held a "Science and Technology Committee" (11 Nov 1998) [46]

"CHAPTER 8 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE

Medical Use Of Cannabis : Recommendations

"8.3 We therefore recommend that clinical trials of cannabis for the treatment of MS and chronic pain should be mounted as a matter of urgency. We warmly welcome the fact that, in the course of our inquiry, both Dr Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s working group under Sir William Asscher, have set off down this route"

8.5 "The Government have said repeatedly that, if sufficient evidence in favour of cannabis as a medicine were produced for the MCA to be prepared to license it, they would amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations so as to permit it to be prescribed."

"Why Change The Law ?

8.11 Our principal reason for recommending that the law be changed, to make legal the use of cannabis for medical purposes, is compassionate. Illegal medical use of cannabis is quite widespread ( paragraphs 5.2-3 ) ; it is sometimes connived at and even in some cases encouraged by health professionals ( paragraph 5.6 ) ; and yet at present it exposes patients and in some cases their carers to all the distress of criminal proceedings, with the possibility of serious penalties. We acknowledge that, if our recommendation were implemented, the United Kingdom would be moving out of step with many other countries ; we consider that the Government should not be afraid to give a lead in this matter in a responsible way.

8.12 As a secondary reason, we would observe that the law in this area appears to be being enforced inconsistently, and in some cases with a very light hand ( paragraphs 7.2-5 ). Some cases are not brought to court ; where users of cannabis for medical purposes have been prosecuted, the sentence has sometimes been light ; and there have even been cases where juries have refused to convict. The Minister told us that he was content to leave this as a matter for the discretion of the prosecuting authorities and the courts ( QQ 668-673 ). That is a constitutionally proper position for a Minister ; but it is not the right position for Parliament. If statute law is not enforced, Parliament is brought into disrepute ; either enforcement must be tightened up, or the law must be changed. In this case, we recommend the latter."

It would seem to be no coincidence that November 11, 1998 was also the date of a GW Pharm’s press release, when they referenced the above government Committee on their website : "Commenting on the findings of The House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, which reported today, Dr Geoffrey Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, said : "I am sure smoking is not the answer. Medical treatments must be administered in ways that are not in themselves harmful." [46b]

And where is the scientific research evidence from 1998 that says that smoking cannabis is harmful ? (I’m not talking about mixed with tobacco here.) This statement by GW Pharm could very well be interpreted as nothing more than their corporate effort to maintain a monopoly on the medical cannabis market by their seeking to influence government drug policy concerning raw cannabis by promoting a non-smoking delivery system and thus excluding people, who wish to use raw cannabis, from any future legalisation debate, thus preventing them from legally obtaining raw cannabis buds for their own consumption in the future.

As of the date that I inserted the above paragraph (November 22, 2011 - which is eleven years after the above event,) this is exactly the situation that the UK general public finds themselves in. Cannabis buds are still illegal - FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT GW PHARM AND A FEW PERMITTED RESEARCHERS.

PEOPLE - WE’VE BEEN HAD. No mistake about it. November 11, 1998 was a significant day in the course of the GW campaign to maintain the monopoly of cannabis production and supply in the UK by their promotion of a non-smoking cannabis delivery system. By correctly linking references 46 and 46b (above) it is easy to see that Sativex is the Trojan Horse that is intended to lead to the permanent prohibition of herbal cannabis in the UK. Now watch the prohibitionists go say that this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Ach.

In 2001 "The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001" [47] was enacted and came into force on February 1, 2002. Looking back, at the language of this act with respect to terms such as "medicinal product," "imported or exported in the form of a medicinal product," "laboratory," "pharmacy business," this Act would appear to be a custom-written Act of Parliament for GW Pharm to be given the go-ahead for their pharmaceutical trials and their cultivation of cannabis, with the eventual result leading to the licensing of Sativex in the UK.

Let’s have a look at this Act, as it relates to the cultivation of cannabis in the UK.

"Cultivation under licence of cannabis plant

12. Where any person is authorised by a licence of the Secretary of State issued under this regulation and for the time being in force to cultivate plants of the genus Cannabis, it shall not by virtue of section 6 of the Act be unlawful for that person to cultivate any such plant in accordance with the terms of the licence and in compliance with any conditions attached to the licence."

Considering that no other business has been given a license to grow cannabis for commercial production as a cannabis pharm drug, and that until now (2011) GW Pharm hold the commercial monopoly in the production and supply of a cannabis pharm drug in the UK, it is not at all unreasonable to arrive at this conclusion - yea, it would appear to be the only conclusion to arrive at, given the monopoly circumstances that GW Pharm are currently operating under. It is under this Act of Parliament that GW Pharm are potentially covered for enablement for future production of the cannabis pharm med called Sativex, although the actual licensing of Sativex for public prescription would still await a future date (i.e. June 2010.)

Whereas the House of Lords Conclusion of 1998 recommended that "the law must be changed," UK gov decided to write and pass this "Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001" INSTEAD of changing the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971, thereby maintaining the MoDA penalties for cannabis possession and cannabis supplying by the general public, with the addition of a host of new regulatory measures concerning the aforementioned terms, encapsulated in this new Act - "The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001."

A friend commented to me that all of these things cannot go by unnoticed and that there are Press reporters who are analysing the progression of these things as they relate to cannabis use. Mmh. Press reporters do just that - they report. It is only cannabis campaigners who have the depth of interest to compare and evaluate the impact of any particular law as it may relate to the legalise cannabis campaign - who else would be interested in doing otherwise ? Yes, there are plenty of academics who research and evaluate medical reports in the UK, but where are the reports and articles concerning the legalise cannabis campaign ? They are to be found only on cannabis campaigners’ websites.

Pushing out the Trojan Horse

Canada was the first country to approve Sativex on April 13, 2005 [6] which just so happens to be the break-off time point of the "Keele Report" [7] which concluded :

"Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005."

This Keele Report thus demolishes any notion that the strength of skunk cannabis has caused an increase in psychosis or schizophrenia during the abovementioned time period.

Since that time, we have witnessed a back-tracking of government positions on the classification of cannabis, most notably in the UK.

In the same year (2005), the UK Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asked the ACMD to review evidence on the effects of strong cannabis on mental health. The council decided to confirm its status as a class C drug but issued a reminder of its harmfulness. "At 56 pages long, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) final report referred to more scientific papers than before. But if a precautionary principle was applied it was to the data itself, not to its implications or to their classification recommendation. So cautious were they that they completely ignored the key published British longitudinal data on cannabis use and schizophrenia. [7] They relied instead on a GP data base survey they decided to commission from one of their own members." [8]

In December of 2005, the ACMD concluded in their letter to Charles Clarke : "After a detailed scrutiny of the evidence, the Council does not advise the reclassification of cannabis products to Class B ; it recommends they remain within Class C. While cannabis can, unquestionably, produce harms, these are not of the same order as those of substances within Class B." [9]

Derek Williams at UKCIA noted the timing connection and implications between the Guardian’s article [10] concerning the Keele Report and the discussion between Gordon Brown and his team on the reclassification of cannabis from Class C back to Class B. Derek correctly commented "Now this has a very important consequence for everyone in the UK, way beyond the single issue of cannabis and it’s ranking in the Misuse of drugs act. Our Prime Minister Mr Brown was made aware of this study before he made his decision to return cannabis to class B." and Derek wrote a very good essay which connected the Guardian article with the fact that Gordon Brown completely ignored the Keele Report [11]

Cannabis was reclassified back to Class B in the UK on Monday January 26, 2009 [12] which was 5 months before the Keele Report was first published on June 26, 2009 [7b]

And so the dishonesty of government continues, with seemingly no end in sight. Sativex was launched in the UK on June 21, 2010.

After the June 2011 Global Commission on Drug Policy petition was presented to the UN and world leaders, the UK Home Office announced "We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful - they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities." [13]

The reasonable working alternative to cannabis prohibition

If any government wishes to succeed in protecting adolescents and young people against any ill effects (their supposition - not mine) that they perceive from cannabis use in these age groups, then they need to be getting started with formulating a regulatory system for the supply and use of cannabis that incorporates workable laws for non-adult use. At the moment, young people have no protection at all.

The government answer in increased tax expenditure to further the efforts of law enforcement is not the answer, as portrayed by the fact that the government has failed to reduce cannabis use in the aforementioned age groups. If anything, even more young people are experimenting with cannabis today. The government is responsible for the consequences of drug use by minors in that they have failed to address cannabis law reform in a properly regulated manner.

Herbal cannabis is regulated in 16 US States and Washington D.C. [14] - yet by the way that UK gov talks about herbal cannabis, one would think that they have never heard of that big country across the Pond called "America." What pathetic excuse is next up ? Something like "Ah, but we’re not American, we’re British ?" This form of government attitude is deceptive in the extreme because this is not any kind of blanket ignorance on their part and the omission of a comprehensive UK regulatory policy on cannabis is nothing short of government neglect and dereliction of duty in addressing the issue of adolescent and youth use of drugs by failing to initiate a regulatory form of herbal cannabis legalisation.

Enough of cannabis prohibition - it’s time to regulate all aspects of cannabis, from seed to end user. Only by doing this will the government have a chance to reduce any perceived harm to minors, as well as addressing the regulated use of cannabis for adults who wish to use cannabis without the criminal record, possible prison time and/or fines.

Conclusions : Will the Trojan Horse Succeed ?

As one commenter on the Sativex video said "So, the cure is the cause ? So stop spending endless amounts of OUR money on kicking peoples doors in to bust a few plants & deal with the real issues instead." [15]

Research material on cannabinoids is available to the public - but at a high price. [16] It is my strong belief that the authors of such material should flood these documents and books into the public arena as digital documents, either free of charge, or at very low cost. To keep this important research material as a virtual prisoner in the realm of academia is completely wrong because it assists governments in maintaining the prohibition of herbal cannabis. Why should the general public have to rely on youtube videos and blogs for their information, when the full research documents are out there, and available, yet at very high price ? Why must we settle for a meagre abstract of such important research information ?

One pertinent answer to this question is that long-time eminent researchers and authors on cannabis and cannabinoids are now working within the cannabis pharmaceutical industry. As an example of this point, Ethan Russo is the Senior Medical Advisor at the GW Pharmaceuticals (producers of Sativex) "Cannabinoid Research Institute." [17] Russo considers himself fortunate to be a scientific advisor to the world’s premier cannabis research and products company GW Pharmaceuticals. "I greatly appreciate that they are using whole cannabis extracts for their unique delivery systems. They recognize the synergistic potential of cannabis components, and provide them in a safe, reliable, and reproducible pharmaceutical form," Russo said. [18]

Does this imply that herbal cannabis is not safe or reliable ? GW Pharmaceuticals are not using "whole" cannabis extracts for their delivery system at all. Contrary to Russo’s above comment, the cannabis that is used is stripped down to only two cannabinoids - tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) to deliberately remove the "high" that cannabis gives in its raw herbal form. [19] Russo himself acknowledges the partial use of cannabinoids in Sativex on a GW Pharm poster when he says that "active cannabinoids, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)." [20]

Russo’s salary must be good, to be seeking to keep this wonderful plant called cannabis trapped into the pharmaceutical model, while it continues to remain in worldwide prohibition in raw herbal form. Russo once said : "Cannabis is the single most versatile herbal remedy, and the most useful plant on Earth," Russo says with a smile. "No other single plant contains as wide a range of medically active herbal constituents. I like to think of it as Nature’s highest expression of unrequited female botanical passion !" [18] which same, past, herbal sentiments are surely a far cry from his current employment at GW pharm.

Yes, "nature’s highest expression" - messed around with in a clinical factory to satisfy the shareholders of a government sanctioned private sector pharmaceutical corporation and their partner distributors. A very lucrative proposition, indeed.

No wonder then, that GW say, in their own words : "GW has never endorsed or supported the idea of distributing or legalizing crude herbal cannabis for medical use. In both our publications and presentations, we have consistently maintained that only a cannabinoid medication—one that is standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of an appropriate delivery system, and tested in properly controlled preclinical and clinical studies—can meet the standards of regulatory authorities around the world, including those of the FDA. These criteria are also mandatory if the modern medical model—informed patients working with, and being advised by, knowledgeable physicians to identify appropriate treatment options—is ever to be attained with a cannabinoid medication." [21]

Towards the end of the penultimate edition of the magazine "Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics" Ethan Russo commented : "In closing, I would like to thank Lester for his idea, Tip for his support that has sustained me beyond his passing, Bill for his enduring encouragement, Dale Gieringer, Franjo Grotenhermen, John McPartland for their multitudinous submissions, GW Pharmaceuticals for their commitment to the future of cannabinoid therapeutics, and all the remaining board members and subscribers for their attention and largesse. For this, I am extremely grateful." Sincerely, Ethan Russo, MD, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, October 2003 [22]

The article "GW Pharmaceuticals List of Abbreviations and Definitions of Terms" appeared in the same penultimate edition of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics at the same time as the above comments. [23] Was the demise of The Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics a personal requiem for the magazine or a general requiem for the end of Russo’s support of herbal cannabis ? It is very sad when capable cannabis researchers, people within the cannabis community who started out with a great admiration for the cannabis plant, who then go on to make a personal career move over to cannabis pharmaceutical research instead of working within the cannabis law reform movement to further the cause for herbal legalisation.

I mean no personal ill-will towards Ethan Russo and have never personally spoken with the man, but anyone reading Mr. Russo’s previous comments about herbal cannabis can surely be left in no doubt that his current occupation is a far cry from the herbal delights that he expounded on in his pre-GW Pharm era. [18] Read Mr. Russo’s articles "Cannabinoids in the management of difficult to treat pain." [49] "Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS" [50]

After all, the US "War on Drugs" is a war that is waged only on SOME drugs that the US government choose to keep in prohibition. The fact that tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) are still a Schedule 1 under "Psychedelic substances" drug having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" [24] is surely a great and scandalous INJUSTICE, in view of the fact that the US government holds the patent on cannabinoids, [25] has been running an MMJ scheme for selected patients for over 30 years [26] which provides them with a monthly allowance of rolled marijuana joints [27] and chooses to allow a UK business corporation called GW Pharm to run clinical trials on cannabis therapeutics with a view to the FDA giving approval for cannabis pharmaceutical preparations. [see 28 to 30 below]

The Obama administration may find that they will not have much choice in the matter of rescheduling THC because the FDA will eventually approve Sativex (seeing that they have allowed all the clinical trials to go ahead) and it would seem impossible for them to do so with THC in Schedule 1, having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" which is probably the reason why morphine is in Schedule 2, (along with opium and methadone etc) [duh] as it is used to help terminally ill patients. It will surely be GW Pharm that succeeds in the rescheduling of cannabis. They’ve got the big bucks to pay the lawyers and advisors etc do it. Pharm meds will succeed where the campaign of the cannabis community has not - and not for any lack of trying, over such a long period of time. The one consolation that the cannabis community will be able to draw from any federal rescheduling of cannabis is that the penalties for herbal cannabis possession will be lowered accordingly.

The Cannabis Legalisation Campaign is Being Railroaded

I have not yet read one single article on the internet that truly emphasises the seriousness of the threat that Sativex poses to the worldwide legalise cannabis campaign - and I make a point, health permitting, of researching and rationally evaluating these kind of issues and how they may impact (positively or negatively) on the global campaign for cannabis legalisation.

The acceptance, endorsement and promotion of cannabis pharm meds, such as Sativex, is a serious subject. I know of people who believe that the promotion of Sativex is a good thing, because they believe that it promotes cannabis, so they think that Sativex can only be good. But let’s not get stuck here with aesthetics - the two are not the same thing at all, not by a long chalk.

Let’s have a look at how far this trojan horse called Sativex has moved along in the USA.

GW Pharmaceuticals won FDA approval in the USA to launch a Phase III trial on January 3, 2006 [28]

Sativex Entered Phase III Clinical Programme In Cancer Pain on November 23 2010 [29]

A US Patent was granted for Sativex in cancer pain on April 20, 2011 [30] (4-20 - maybe they thought we wouldn’t notice)

Upon approval in the United States, Sativex will be marketed by Otsuka. [31] GW Pharm have developed quite an array of Sativex marketing partners in recent times. [31b]

How the FDA Works

"Clinical testing is not carried out by the FDA itself but is the responsibility of the drug’s manufacturer (sponsor). The necessary investigations, conducted by academic institutions or by private contractors, involve three discrete phases designed to document safety and efficacy through “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience.” In Phase I, the drug’s toxicity and human tolerance to it are examined usually in fewer than one hundred subjects with the primary purpose of evaluating potential toxicity rather than efficacy (although gaining knowledge of effectiveness is not precluded). In Phase II, which begins after dose-response and toxicity data are deemed sufficient to continue the process of clinical investigation, detailed studies are carried out in several hundred humans. This phase, involving “controlled clinical studies conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication . . . in patients with the disease or condition under study,” is designed to verify the drug’s effectiveness, major side effects, and appropriate dose. In Phase III, which is commenced once the drug under consideration has been deemed sufficiently safe and effective for further testing and evaluation, large-scale studies—involving as many as several thousand patient volunteers—are conducted to determine complications of low incidence as well as efficacy in a large cohort of the general population with the disease.

Once these three phases of drug evaluation have been completed, the manufacturer of the drug files a New Drug Application (NDA) with the FDA. This document must provide the results of all preclinical and clinical investigations and include the names of all of the clinical investigators ; describe all components of the drug ; document manufacturing, processing, and packaging methods ; and furnish samples of the proposed labeling. If the FDA deems the benefits of using the drug for the purposes proposed in the NDA outweigh its risks, it will grant approval and the drug may then enter the stream of interstate commerce.

The FDA’s approval of an NDA does not require that the investigational new drug be superior to, or even as effective as, an already approved medication. The data need only demonstrate that it is safe and effective. Therefore, for medical marijuana, as with any other investigational new drug, only its safety and efficacy need be demonstrated—not its superiority." [49]

The Reason for Repression of MMJ Folk in the USA

So, GW Pharm has already clinched a Sativex marketing deal in the USA. I hate to think of what is further in store for MMJ law (and patients and everyone connected) in the USA when the FDA finally approves Sativex for sale as a prescription medicine.

It is entirely plausible that an undisclosed policy scenario is the primary reason for our witnessing the current DEA crackdowns on dispensaries, patients and all, in the USA, along with state tampering with, and even successfully voting to repeal, [32] MMJ laws since the failure of Proposition 19 on November 2, 2010. [33] Thus the failure of Prop 19 is achieving the very thing that campaigners were blue-in-the-face from campaigning about, in the time leading up to the Vote - that in the event of the failure of Prop 19, state and federal governments will politically twist the failure to read "the people of California do not want cannabis to be legalised" and thus take the opportunity of this green light to bring on MMJ repression within the United States.

Update

Nov 7, 2011, Ron Marczyk, (in the USA) is also saying similar things vis-a-vis the up-coming licensing of Sativex being one of the reasons for the current federal repression against MMJ folk. [48] Good to know that I am not alone in this arena of madness.

Are we getting sick of this Trojan Horse yet ?

I certainly am. If the cannabis law reform movement does not begin to see a clear difference between herbal cannabis and cannabis pharm meds and to SHOUT OUT against these issues concerning Sativex by using documented evidence to further the campaign for the general cannabis law reform of herbal cannabis, then I fear that we will not see the general legalisation of cannabis at all. Yes, that’s blunt and to the point - AND IT NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The possibility of herbal cannabis remaining forever in prohibition does not deter me - if anything, it makes me determined to campaign even harder. This single issue of the political protection of Sativex should be of the utmost importance to the worldwide cannabis law reform movement as it is not something that is just happening "over there" - it is an issue that is slowly but surely impacting on the campaign for cannabis legalisation and as long as cannabis is in prohibition I will never stop talking about the threat that Sativex poses to the interests of the worldwide cannabis campaign.

A Strong Argument for General Cannabis Legalisation

The UK is (obviously) not the USA. UK laws concerning cannabis have moved forward in a pretty conservative manner and the UK does not have a system of direct democracy in the form of "ballot measures", (ie such as exists in 21 states (+D.C) where citizens can initiate laws/statutes.)[42] All too often, the opinions of anti-cannabis people are given preference in the UK media and it is these opinions that the overall majority of MPs are reading, and more often than not, appear to be agreeing with. Anti-cannabis people do not seem to realise that it is possible for themselves to disagree with cannabis, without seeking to prevent others from using it. Anti-cannabis people believe that they have the right to prevent a regulated system for cannabis and are very vocal in expressing their sentiments and opinions on the subject (just as we are.) It is on this basis that I assert that if campaigners for herbal cannabis do not oppose cannabis pharm meds, then there is a serious possibility that herbal cannabis may never be legalised for general use. If people are content to accept the pharmaceutical medical model of delivery, then we must consider the real possibility that this may be the only legal model that we ever see in the future.

The implications of this pharmaceutical medical model of delivery could seriously impact on the general campaign for general cannabis legalisation. All it might possibly take for this to be accomplished would be for some "bright spark" politician to come up with the idea to license GW Pharm to produce another type of cannabis pharm drug, with a different delivery system (such as a linctus, taken orally) that could be legally made available to anybody who has a doctor’s prescription, for an extended and thorough range of medical complaints. If this was to be accomplished, government could then realistically make the claim that all patients’ medicinal cannabis needs were being met by prescription cannabis pharm meds and then go on to bring in some of their business-as-usual political rhetoric in the form of "so there is no need to legalise any form of herbal cannabis for general use, as it would be an irresponsible act for government to legalise a street drug with an unknown level of THC and thus a drug that has unknown and possibly dangerous results."

Could all of this sound familiar ? Nothing they could say would ever shock me. I’ve been listening to their lies and zig-zag rhetoric for a long time now. In view of the fact that it is seemingly very hard to move the legalise cannabis campaign forward, we need to each ask ourselves whether or not we will add our names to campaigning for a medical cannabis delivery system. I personally will not add my name to anything that could realistically jeopardise the general cannabis campaign. As a campaigner for one law for all cannabis users, for whatever reason, I view that only the implementation of a regulated system can bring about the equality of law that is needed for all cannabis users. That being said, how could I possibly campaign for anything less than this ? The thought of cannabis being permanently trapped in the medicine cabinet cannot possibly be a feasible proposition for the general legalisation campaign in any western democratic country where there are many millions of recreational cannabis users, many of whom are being hauled daily before the criminal justice system. It’s just not on. I will never accept this diabolical situation. Not ever.

History is beginning to show that several of the leaders of the US medical marijuana movement have been opposing the general legalisation of cannabis, because they want the medical model to remain as the de-facto model for everybody. Dennis Peron, one of the authors of California Proposition 215 has perhaps been the most vocal, in this respect, by claiming that all cannabis users are patients who just don’t yet realise it.[45] Could this type of reverse campaigning within the MMJ movement also happen in other western countries, if herbal cannabis was to be legalised for medical use ?

We need a form of general cannabis legalisation for everybody who wants to use cannabis. A general legalisation could eventually happen if enough campaigners refuse to be moved from this single focus outlook by campaigning for general cannabis legalisation via a governmentally approved regulated system. The important word, in this context, is "FOCUS."

I totally agree with the singularly focussed conclusion of Russ Belville at NORML when he says "Until marijuana is supported as a good thing for all and not an evil thing we allow medical exceptions for, medical marijuana patients will remain in second-class citizenship and healthy marijuana smokers will remain behind bars." [44]

A Word in Ending...

Let us also remember this : it was Rick Simpson, a member of the cannabis community, who discovered that hemp oil is the cure for cancer, a man on the run, wanted by the Canadian government for cannabis "offences", a man who is living under-cover in Europe - THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED THE CURE FOR CANCER. The man who does not even have a page on Wikipedia. IF RICK HAD BEEN A PHARMACOLOGIST WORKING ON CANNABIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IN A GOVERNMENT APPROVED LAB, HE WOULD BE AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE "FOR PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE." [34] The cannabis community is fully capable of discovering the illnesses of which cannabis can cure or ameliorate symptoms.

The last word, over to Rick : "In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis, a respected Hungarian physician who was concerned about the high mortality rate of women giving birth in hospital, instituted a procedure at one hospital whereby doctors washed and disinfected their hands before delivering babies. Immediately, the mortality rate dropped from THIRTY percent to near zero. Seven other hospitals followed suit with similar results.

The European medical establishment recognized Dr. Semmelweis’s achievement by blocking his applications for further research funds, vilifying and ostracising him, and, ultimately, causing him to lose his prestigious positions at maternity hospitals. In America, the newly formed American Medical Association added insult to injury by threatening to revoke the license of any doctor caught washing his hands. Dr. Semmelweis was so distressed that women continued to die that he suffered a mental breakdown that eventually led to his death in 1865.

Don’t expect a doctor working inside the system to buck the system. The risks are still too great ! The advice she or he offers you is controlled by the large medical industry that makes its money from expensive cancer fighting drugs and treatments. It is an industry that doesn’t look favorably on natural supplements or other cancer treatments that they cannot patent or make a large profit from. Years from now the current conventional cancer treatments used by doctors will on the whole be viewed in the same light that we view the old medical practice of blood letting to cure illnesses." [35]

Please share these points widely. Whenever you get the opportunity. June 29, 2011.

Article researched and written by Jayelle Farmer Founder, Legalise Cannabis International http://www.legaliseinternational.com Researched Tuesday June 14 - Friday June 17 2011 Published : Saturday June 18, 2011 Please check the Updates at the bottom of this page from time to time. Thank you.

Legalise Cannabis International wishes to make clear that any individual named in this article may not necessarily agree with any or all of the content of this article.

Sativex graphics : GW Pharmaceuticals media library : http://www.gwpharm.com/library.aspx

I certainly am. If the cannabis law reform movement does not begin to see a clear difference between herbal cannabis and cannabis pharm meds and to SHOUT OUT against these issues concerning Sativex by using documented evidence to further the campaign for the general cannabis law reform of herbal cannabis, then I fear that we will not see the general legalisation of cannabis at all. Yes, that’s blunt and to the point - AND IT NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The possibility of herbal cannabis remaining forever in prohibition does not deter me - if anything, it makes me determined to campaign even harder. This single issue of the political protection of Sativex should be of the utmost importance to the worldwide cannabis law reform movement as it is not something that is just happening "over there" - it is an issue that is slowly but surely impacting on the campaign for cannabis legalisation and as long as cannabis is in prohibition I will never stop talking about the threat that Sativex poses to the interests of the worldwide cannabis campaign.

A Strong Argument for General Cannabis Legalisation

The UK is (obviously) not the USA. UK laws concerning cannabis have moved forward in a pretty conservative manner and the UK does not have a system of direct democracy in the form of "ballot measures", (ie such as exists in 21 states (+D.C) where citizens can initiate laws/statutes.)[42] All too often, the opinions of anti-cannabis people are given preference in the UK media and it is these opinions that the overall majority of MPs are reading, and more often than not, appear to be agreeing with. Anti-cannabis people do not seem to realise that it is possible for themselves to disagree with cannabis, without seeking to prevent others from using it. Anti-cannabis people believe that they have the right to prevent a regulated system for cannabis and are very vocal in expressing their sentiments and opinions on the subject (just as we are.) It is on this basis that I assert that if campaigners for herbal cannabis do not oppose cannabis pharm meds, then there is a serious possibility that herbal cannabis may never be legalised for general use. If people are content to accept the pharmaceutical medical model of delivery, then we must consider the real possibility that this may be the only legal model that we ever see in the future.

The implications of this pharmaceutical medical model of delivery could seriously impact on the general campaign for general cannabis legalisation. All it might possibly take for this to be accomplished would be for some "bright spark" politician to come up with the idea to license GW Pharm to produce another type of cannabis pharm drug, with a different delivery system (such as a linctus, taken orally) that could be legally made available to anybody who has a doctor’s prescription, for an extended and thorough range of medical complaints. If this was to be accomplished, government could then realistically make the claim that all patients’ medicinal cannabis needs were being met by prescription cannabis pharm meds and then go on to bring in some of their business-as-usual political rhetoric in the form of "so there is no need to legalise any form of herbal cannabis for general use, as it would be an irresponsible act for government to legalise a street drug with an unknown level of THC and thus a drug that has unknown and possibly dangerous results."

Could all of this sound familiar ? Nothing they could say would ever shock me. I’ve been listening to their lies and zig-zag rhetoric for a long time now. In view of the fact that it is seemingly very hard to move the legalise cannabis campaign forward, we need to each ask ourselves whether or not we will add our names to campaigning for a medical cannabis delivery system. I personally will not add my name to anything that could realistically jeopardise the general cannabis campaign. As a campaigner for one law for all cannabis users, for whatever reason, I view that only the implementation of a regulated system can bring about the equality of law that is needed for all cannabis users. That being said, how could I possibly campaign for anything less than this ? The thought of cannabis being permanently trapped in the medicine cabinet cannot possibly be a feasible proposition for the general legalisation campaign in any western democratic country where there are many millions of recreational cannabis users, many of whom are being hauled daily before the criminal justice system. It’s just not on. I will never accept this diabolical situation. Not ever.

History is beginning to show that several of the leaders of the US medical marijuana movement have been opposing the general legalisation of cannabis, because they want the medical model to remain as the de-facto model for everybody. Dennis Peron, one of the authors of California Proposition 215 has perhaps been the most vocal, in this respect, by claiming that all cannabis users are patients who just don’t yet realise it.[45] Could this type of reverse campaigning within the MMJ movement also happen in other western countries, if herbal cannabis was to be legalised for medical use ?

We need a form of general cannabis legalisation for everybody who wants to use cannabis. A general legalisation could eventually happen if enough campaigners refuse to be moved from this single focus outlook by campaigning for general cannabis legalisation via a governmentally approved regulated system. The important word, in this context, is "FOCUS."

I totally agree with the singularly focussed conclusion of Russ Belville at NORML when he says "Until marijuana is supported as a good thing for all and not an evil thing we allow medical exceptions for, medical marijuana patients will remain in second-class citizenship and healthy marijuana smokers will remain behind bars." [44]

A Word in Ending...

Let us also remember this : it was Rick Simpson, a member of the cannabis community, who discovered that hemp oil is the cure for cancer, a man on the run, wanted by the Canadian government for cannabis "offences", a man who is living under-cover in Europe - THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED THE CURE FOR CANCER. The man who does not even have a page on Wikipedia. IF RICK HAD BEEN A PHARMACOLOGIST WORKING ON CANNABIS MEDICAL RESEARCH IN A GOVERNMENT APPROVED LAB, HE WOULD BE AWARDED THE NOBEL PRIZE "FOR PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE." [34] The cannabis community is fully capable of discovering the illnesses of which cannabis can cure or ameliorate symptoms.

The last word, over to Rick : "In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis, a respected Hungarian physician who was concerned about the high mortality rate of women giving birth in hospital, instituted a procedure at one hospital whereby doctors washed and disinfected their hands before delivering babies. Immediately, the mortality rate dropped from THIRTY percent to near zero. Seven other hospitals followed suit with similar results.

The European medical establishment recognized Dr. Semmelweis’s achievement by blocking his applications for further research funds, vilifying and ostracising him, and, ultimately, causing him to lose his prestigious positions at maternity hospitals. In America, the newly formed American Medical Association added insult to injury by threatening to revoke the license of any doctor caught washing his hands. Dr. Semmelweis was so distressed that women continued to die that he suffered a mental breakdown that eventually led to his death in 1865.

Don’t expect a doctor working inside the system to buck the system. The risks are still too great ! The advice she or he offers you is controlled by the large medical industry that makes its money from expensive cancer fighting drugs and treatments. It is an industry that doesn’t look favorably on natural supplements or other cancer treatments that they cannot patent or make a large profit from. Years from now the current conventional cancer treatments used by doctors will on the whole be viewed in the same light that we view the old medical practice of blood letting to cure illnesses." [35]

Please share these points widely. Whenever you get the opportunity. June 29, 2011.

Article researched and written by Jayelle Farmer
- Founder, Legalise Cannabis International
- http://www.legaliseinternational.com
- Researched Tuesday June 14 - Friday June 17 2011
- Published : Saturday June 18, 2011
- Please check the Updates at the bottom of this page from time to time. -Thank you.

Legalise Cannabis International wishes to make clear that any individual named in this article may not necessarily agree with any or all of the content of this article.

Sativex graphics : GW Pharmaceuticals media library : http://www.gwpharm.com/library.aspx

References, Links and Further Reading :

[1] "Cannabis and Psychosis (Young People)" House of Commons debates, 9 June 2011, 6:00 pm (Hansard record of debate beginning at 6pm)

[1b] "Treating Yourself - Meet Dr. Frankenbeanstein" by Jo Pietri

[2] "Isolation, Structure, and Partial Synthesis of an Active Constituent of Hashish" by Y. Gaoni, R. Mechoulam, April 1964

[3] "Marihuana chemistry." Science 168:1159-66, 1970. Mechoulam R. [Laboratory of Natural Products, Pharmacy School, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel]

[4] "The Wootton Report" January 1969, Page 21

[5] "Sativex and the Cannabis Community" Jayelle Farmer Nov 28, 2010

[6] Health Canada Approval of Sativex

[7] June 26, 2009 : (Note : This study is sometimes referred to as "The Keele Report") "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia inthe United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005" by Martin Frisher, Ilana Crome, Orsolina Martino, Peter Croft Article history : Received 17 April 2009, Received in revised form 27 May 2009, Accepted 30 May 2009

[7b] International Association for Cannabis as Medicine : "Science : The development of the number of new schizophrenia cases in the UK does not support the hypothesis that cannabis use increases schizophrenia risk"

"According to research of scientists at Keele University in Staffordshire, UK, the incidence (the number of new diagnosed cases) of schizophrenia in the years 1996 to 2005 does not support the hypothesis that cannabis use increases the risk for the development of schizophrenia or psychosis. For this study an analysis of data from 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was conducted. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3 per cent of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining.

A recently published study found that cannabis use increased fourfold between 1972 and 2002 and 18-fold among people under 18 years of age. If the risk of schizophrenia is elevated 1.8-fold among light users and 3.1-fold among heavy users as suggested by another study, and assuming an elevated risk for 20 years, an increase in schizophrenia incidence of 29 per cent would have been expected between 1996 and 2005. Researchers concluded that "the causal models linking cannabis with schizophrenia/psychoses are not supported by this study" and that "the underlying causes of schizophrenia/psychoses remained stable/declined over the study period."

(Source : Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P. Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Schizophr Res. 2009 Jun 26. [Electronic publication ahead of print])

[8] "Marijuana In The UK And The Advisory Council On The Misuse Of Drugs" (National Drug Prevention Alliance)

[9] "Further consideration of the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971" Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, December 2005

[10] "Brown plans tougher line on cannabis against advice of own drug experts" The Guardian. April 4, 2008

[11] "Cannabis and mental illness – the Keele Study" Derek Williams (UKCIA) July 4th, 2009

[12] Reclassification of cannabis to Class B

[13] Home Office comments after release of Global Commission Report, June 2011

[14] US states that have legalised cannabis for medical use

[15] "Sativex - Inside the UK grow rooms - Medical Marijuana" (video)

[16] Cannabis and Cannabinoids search on google books

[17] Cannabinoid Research Institute at GW pharmaceuticals

[18] Dr. Ethan Russo : Pot Pioneer

[19]Sativex : "Summary of Product Characteristics"

[20] "Sativex cannabis based medicine..." poster

[21] Q : "What is GW’s position on crude herbal cannabis ?" GW Pharmaceuticals website

[22] "Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics : A Requiem" by Ethan Russo, October 2003. (MS Word doc)

[23] "GW Pharmaceuticals List of Abbreviations and Definitions of Terms" published in the penultimate edition Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, Year 2003, Edition No. 3/4

[24] Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) Schedule 1 "Psychedelic substances" "having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"

[25] U.S. patent applications available from 2005 to present : "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants"

[26] May 7, 2008 Alternet : "Psst... Government-Supplied Marijuana Program Turns 30 That’s right, our government has been supplying medical marijuana to some patients for three full decades."

[27] Video : "Irvin Rosenfeld HB 5470 Michigan Medical Marijuana Testimony"

[duh] List of Schedule II drugs (US) Opiates : 9300 Morphine

[28] GW Pharmaceuticals wins FDA approval to launch a Phase III trial January 3, 2006

[29] Sativex Enters Phase III Clinical Programme In Cancer Pain November 23 2010

[30] US Patent granted for Sativex in cancer pain on April 20, 2011 (4/20)

[31] Q. "Who markets Sativex ?" Upon approval in the United States, Sativex will be marketed by Otsuka

[31b] Full List of GW Pharm Marketing Partners As a side note, Novartis are the Swiss company who litigated against the Indian government over trade mark infringement via India permitting the sale of generic cancer treatment drugs - drugs that are the reason for Bernard Rappaz, hemp pioneer, sitting in prison in Switzerland. Read my Swiss article here. Shocking stuff.

[32] "Montana House votes to repeal medical marijuana law"

[33] Russ Belville "10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats"

[34] All Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine

[35] Rick Simpson : "Whose oil can you trust ?"

[36] James Cole (DoJ) June 29, 2011 Memorandum to US Attorneys c/f Ogden Memo October 19, 2009

[37] DoJ Memo Sends a Chilling Message. "In a move that impacts hundreds of thousands of medical cannabis patients nationwide, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a chilling message tonight to state and local officials who are seeking to implement medical cannabis laws and to those trying to provide legal medicine : You may be prosecuted. In a memo to US Attorneys nationwide, US Deputy Attorney General James Cole said that Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities… are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law… Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws."

[38] Thursday June 30, 2011 : Second phase III Sativex cancer pain trial commences "The newly-commenced study is part of a Phase III programme being performed in conjunction with GW’s U.S. licensing partner for Sativex®, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. The programme, fully funded by Otsuka, includes at least two Phase III randomised placebo-controlled multi-centre multinational trials as well as a long term extension study. The first study commenced in December 2010. "

[39] Monday July 4, 2011 : Sativex Launched in Germany

[40] Monday July 18, 2011 : Sativex launched in Denmark

[42] 21 states (+D.C) where citizens can initiate laws/statutes

[44] "Medical marijuana turns 15 years old – Has it reached its zenith ?"

[45] Dennis Peron’s opposition to general legalisation

[46] "House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee (11 Nov 1998)"

[46b] GW Pharm comments on the findings of The House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee

[47]"The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001"

[48] November 7, 2011 : "Worth Repeating : Reasons Obama Will Shut Down Medical Marijuana"

[49] "MEDICAL MARIJUANA : THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY" by Peter J. Cohen (Page 48/49)

[50] "GW files new regulatory application to expand Sativex® approvals to additional European countries" "The complete list of countries to which the MRP application is being made is currently being finalized. The list is expected to include approximately ten new countries and will mean that if this MRP process is successful, approaching twenty European countries will have recommended approval of Sativex."

[51] GW Pharm : "Financial Highlights" Sativex sales up by 59% to £4.4m (2010 : £2.8m) and milestone income of £5.3m (2011 : £11.2m). Total revenue of £29.6m (2010 : £30.7m). 95% of revenue generated from overseas customers. Net profit before tax of £2.5m (2010 : £4.6m)

[52] GW Pharm : "European patent granted for Sativex® formulation"

Further Reading

"The man who secretly (and legally) grows 20 tonnes of cannabis a year" Justin Gover, boss of GW Pharmaceuticals, explains how a drug called Sativex can ease the pain of multiple sclerosis sufferers – if the NHS can afford to buy it

Page 13 : Conclusion : "In addition, all of the schizophrenic subjects had been treated with anti- psychotic drugs, so it is possible that the changes in CB1 receptors we have measured in schizophrenia are due to the effects of such treatment." "STUDIES ON [3H]CP-55940 BINDING IN THE HUMAN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM : REGIONAL SPECIFIC CHANGES IN DENSITY OF CANNABINOID-1 RECEPTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA AND CANNABIS USE"

"Conclusions : Neither CNR1 nor CHRNA7 variation appears to alter the risk of schizophrenia. Furthermore, our results do not support the presence of different effects of cannabis use on schizophrenia according to variation within COMT." British Journal of Psychiatry, "Genotype effects of CHRNA7, CNR1 and COMT in schizophrenia : interactions with tobacco and cannabis use"

"Interestingly, they also failed to find a previously reported association between cannabis use and the catechol-O-methyl- transferase (COMT) gene. They suggest that cannabis use is not associated with the ValMet COMT allele, and they do not find evidence of a geneenvironment interaction between the COMT genotype and cannabis use exerting an effect on developing schizophrenia." British Journal of Psychiatry "OPTIMAL TREATMENTS FOR ANOREXIA AND GENETIC RISK IN SCHIZOPHRENIA"

Page 1272/1273 "Causal effects of cannabis cannot be established from this study, and it would not be possible to establish causality from any observational study. However, the re- sults clearly show that cannabis-induced psychoses do not occur randomly. Rather, the degree of hereditary pre-disposition in individuals who receive treatment of cannabis induced psychosis closely mirrors that in those who develop schizophrenia with no history of cannabis-induced psychosis. The results agree with those of other studies that show that cannabis predominantly causes psychotic symptoms in those persons who are predisposed to develop psychosis or show signs of psychosis in the absence of cannabis use. "Familial Predisposition for Psychiatric Disorder : Comparison of Subjects Treated for Cannabis-Induced Psychosis and Schizophrenia" American Medical Association, November 2008 by Mikkel Arendt, MScPsych, PhD ; Preben B. Mortensen, DrMedSc ; Raben Rosenberg, DrMedSc ; Carsten B. Pedersen, MSc ; Berit L. Waltoft, MSc

"Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts : Greater Than the Sum of Their Parts ?" by J.M. McPartland, E.B. Russo

"Cannabis is more than simply D9-tetrahydrocannabinol" by Ethan B. Russo & John M. McPartland

"Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics" All articles may be downloaded.

Wikipedia : Arguments for and against drug prohibition

"Cannabinoids in the management of difficult to treat pain" by Ethan B Russo

"Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS"by Ethan B Russo and others

"Phytochemical and genetic analyses of ancient cannabis from Central Asia" by Ethan B Russo and others

"Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency (CECD) : Can this Concept Explain Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis in Migraine, Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other Treatment-Resistant Conditions ?" by Ethan B Russo

"A tale of two cannabinoids : The therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol" by Ethan Russo and Geoffrey W. Guy

"Cannabis Treatments in Obstetrics and Gynecology : A Historical Review"by Ethan Russo

"Cannabis : from Pariah to Prescription" by Ethan Russo (read online at google books)

"History of Cannabis as a Medicine" by Ethan Russo (read online at google books)

"Hemp for Headache : An In-Depth Historical and Scientific Review of Cannabis in Migraine Treatment" by Ethan Russo

"Future of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Therapeutics" by Ethan Russo

"Wake Up and Smell the Terpenes ! How Cannabis Works" by Fred Gardner

"The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis Sativa" by Harm van Bakel, Jake M Stout Atina G Cote, Carling M Tallon, Andrew G Sharpe, Timothy R Hughes and Jonathan E Page

"An Introduction to the Medical Benefits of Cannabis" collated by Jeremy Acton "The Medicalization of Cannabis" edited by edited by SM Crowther, LA Reynolds and EM Tansey

Media & Government : "Reefer Madness" Lies

May 24, 2011 : Australia : High risks : cannabis and psychosis : "Both the Mental Health Review Tribunal in NSW and the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre have said publicly that if cannabis was removed from the chemistry of young brains, the incidence of schizophrenia in this country would be dramatically reduced."

June 16, 2011 : UK : Mail Online : "Cannabis ’kills 30,000 a year’

Will continue with this section very soon.

Updates

- Monday June 20, 2011 - Added "Full List of GW Pharm Marketing Partners" [31b]
- Friday July 1, 2001 - Added "James Cole (DoJ) Memorandum" [36]
- Friday July 1, 2001 - "Added DoJ Memo Sends a Chilling Message" [37]
- Thursday June 30, 2011 - Added "Second phase III Sativex cancer pain trial commences" [38]
- Monday July 4, 2011 - Added "Sativex Launched in Germany" [39]
- October 24, 2011 - Added "Sativex Launched in Denmark" [40]
- November 7, 2011 - Added section "The Legal Origins of the Trojan Horse." [41] This section is under further contruction, so please check back soon.
- November 7, 2011 - Added "21 states (+D.C) where citizens can initiate laws/statutes" [42]
- November 7, 2011 - Added section "A Strong Argument for General Cannabis Legalisation" [43]
- November 7, 2011 - Added link "Medical marijuana turns 15 years old – Has it reached its zenith ?" [44]
- November 7, 2011 - Added Dennis Peron’s opposition to general legalisation [45]
- November 8, 2011 - Added "House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee (11 Nov 1998)" [46]
- November 8, 2011 - Added "The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001" [47]
- November 8, 2011 - Added "Worth Repeating : Reasons Obama Will Shut Down Medical Marijuana" [48]
- November 8, 2011 - Added a timeline graphic to the section "The Cannabis Legalisation Campaign is Being Railroaded"
- November 8, 2011 - Added all titles below to "Further Reading" List : —"Cannabinoids in the management of difficult to treat pain" by Ethan B Russo and
— "Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS" by Ethan B Russo and others and
— "Phytochemical and genetic analyses of ancient cannabis from Central Asia" by Ethan B Russo and others and
— "Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency (CECD) : Can this Concept Explain Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis in Migraine, Fibromyalgia, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and other Treatment-Resistant Conditions ?" by Ethan B Russo and
— "A tale of two cannabinoids : The therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol" by Ethan Russo and Geoffrey W. Guy and
— "Cannabis Treatments in Obstetrics and Gynecology : A Historical Review" by Ethan Russo and
— "Cannabis : from Pariah to Prescription" By Ethan Russo and
— "History of Cannabis as a Medicine" by Ethan Russo and
— "Hemp for Headache : An In-Depth Historical and Scientific Review of Cannabis in Migraine Treatment" by Ethan Russo and
— "Future of Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Therapeutics" by Ethan Russo and
— "Wake Up and Smell the Terpenes ! How Cannabis Works" by Fred Gardner and
— "The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis Sativa" by Harm van Bakel, Jake M Stout Atina G Cote, Carling M Tallon, Andrew G Sharpe, Timothy R Hughes and Jonathan E Page and
— "An Introduction to the Medical Benefits of Cannabis" collated by Jeremy Acton and
— "The Medicalization of Cannabis" edited by edited by SM Crowther, LA Reynolds and EM Tansey to "Further Reading."
- November 8, 2011 - Added section : "How the FDA Works" [FDA] and created new section "The Reason for Repression of MMJ Folk in the USA."
- November 8, 2011 - Added another "trojan horse" graphic and a GW Pharm lab photo from publicity archives.
- November 15, 2011 - Added "MEDICAL MARIJUANA : THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY" by Peter J. Cohen (Page 48/49) [49]
- November 22, 2011 - Added "GW files new regulatory application to expand Sativex® approvals to additional European countries" [50]
- November 22, 2011 - Added GW Pharm : "Financial Highlights" [51]
- November 22, 2011 - Added "European patent granted for Sativex® formulation" [52]
- November 22, 2011 - Added section [46b] to article section [46] showing the press release of GW Pharm in connection with the 1998 House of Lords "Science and Technology Committee" (11 Nov 1998) New anchored URL link to this section.

published mercredi 4 janvier 2012 13:08

http://www.cannabis-helvetica.ch
http://www.swisshempshop.com