In the second part of this finger wag at junk science journalism, we take a closer look at the reports one has to look for. It's the Lancet meta-analysis on cannabis use and the onset of psychosis whatdunnit, and responses to moral panic vary. Transforms press release,Cannabis health risks should not lead to knee jerk policy making, is a measured and sensible statement. The futile reclassification of cannabis so beloved by drug free warriors, advised against by scientists and utterly ignored by pot smokers is seen for the rhetoric it is.

Articles include two similar abuses of data on pulmonary function. It really wasn't all that hard to find. Steve Rolles of Transform had one last bullet in the chamber post Lancet assassination, and kindly popped things into context. His focus was an article in Thorax. But it's a tough call. It's even harder to not sound pro anarchy on your way to sew death and pestilence when the topic is inhaled combustible materials.

Consider: we now know second hand tobacco smoke is not a class A carcinogen. It's complicated, but in simple terms this claim resulted from models predicting SHS was, well, as it is not. The EPA finding was overturned, then due to jurisdictional technicalities, underturned to its original throne. Here's a piece on the initial "moral intimidation" from last century. It includes;

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk. Indeed, a view that is, in EPA Administrator Carol Browner's words, "widely accepted" is not the same as scientific proof. However one feels about the personal hazards of smoking, this ruling is a victory for science and against what Judge Robert Bork has called "authoritarian regulation propelled by moral intimidation."

Here's the Washington Post news story, followed by a link to a Washington Times commentary piece by science author Michael Fumento....

Still, I can live with that. I may even quietly gaze intently at coffee shop menus, partaking of the delectable aroma of brewed coffee, the caress of warm carbon producing air and rejoicing at the nicotine junkies shivering on the footpath. I suppose for men, the cold helps reboot the vitality of sperm the nicotine kills. For women well, they just go old and wrinkly at breakneck speed. And that would drive anyone to smoke I guess.

But seriously. My point is, right, wrong or ahead of its time, banning smoking has an extensive list of positives. From not smelling like an ashtray to making an addiction hard work there are reasons not to overturn the underturn. Besides, no amount of junk science can change what we do know about passive smoking and increased risk of cancer. Perhaps much of the impetus driving moral panic over cannabis induced psychosis is akin to smoking cigarettes in public or private. And if there's one thing we absorbed like good little citizens, it's to fear the gasping wheeze of inhaled smoke. Accepting cannabis smoking may reduce lung cancer risk is counterintuitive. Forgetting the role tobacco plays when mixed with cannabis has made a mess of topics from addiction, to cancer to respiratory function.

There's a few paragraphs spelling things out at Transform:

It seems the source of this incorrect extrapolation is here. Another more strongly worded piece on another study, from that colourful time is headed, Outrageous anti-pot lies: media uses disgraceful cancer scare tactics. The author is Paul Armentano. I respect Pauls right to be angry. For one, he's translated very difficult findings on cannabinoid behaviour across multiple disciplines, many times. Secondly the fact this junk went to press before the study was published renders the human rights and public health aim something of a joke. Reuters, Fox and even - oh, my! - Australias ABC got it very wrong.

On the cannabis induced psychosis factoid ABCs Health Reporter, Norman Swan notes it may not be as safe as the sixties generation made out. Even Norman chose to be politically correct claiming "any use" is related to increased risk, quoting both 40% and "a quadrupling" of risk. What he left out is how useless such a huge variation is or what the most likely risk actually is. In fact, although I give Norman the final say as promised, his insouciant tripe about some imaginary "60s generation" is beyond frustrating, and indicative of the ABCs right wing leaning.

Alcohol increases this risk by 800% for men, 300% for women according to one study. A plethora of others also support alcohols far more durable link to psychosis than cannabis. Despite Australian drinking levels and our teen binge drinking saturating daily discourse, Norman breathes not a word. Indeed, what would he say? Blame the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's.... 2000's generation/s?

A handy piece of useful data would be alcohol doesn't discriminate - it's shrinks the brain. Cannabis does discriminate, with positive correlation to a smaller hippocampus and amygdala, raising major concern as to the integrity of memory, short term memory, memory of emotional conduct. The amygdala also connects to areas responsible for the regulation of dopamine and one is far more tempted to respect these documented realities than gross generalisations.

Dr. Swan ignored Marjorie Wallace of SANE UK, who wins moral panic medals by the bucket load, but has the decency to remind readers that only 10% of human beings are at any risk of psychological injury. He omitted entirely the reality that 800 cases out of 6.2 million smokers is 0.00125%. He failed to explain why psychosis levels have dropped to around 2% and schizophrenia to 1%. There is absolutely no correlation with cannabis use globally or in any single country: in short, where's the epidemic? He omitted that 40% is a piddling change anyway, with 300-400% considered worthy of publishing a paper.

Sadly, the medicinal potential that's well known and under assault from the morally pure, also missed being referenced. Don't underestimate the illogical voodoo of the drug free proponents, dear reader. It makes sense, particularly when other modalities have failed and deserves respect. Illicit drug abuse is emotional, especially if you've had a personal experience. But insisting medicinal cannabis "sends the wrong message" if someone living with severe cerebral palsy uses it to control bladder/bowel when asleep, is brutally deceptive. Or, as Drug Free proponents now insist, it's "legalisation by stealth". Dr. Swan ignored Australias national stance on managing cannabis related harm and our focus on human rights.

Finally, unless one is falling into opinion, it helps to quote scientists - not select tabloid junk. Ergo, thank-you Leslie Iverson:

Then I realised many people wrongly - or too easily - accept that the mysterious "pro-cannabis lobby" insist on their right to push cannabis and claim it's a "natural herb". What is being missed is that prohibitionists sprouting junk science should really fear the pro-evidence mindset which traditionally responds to "natural this-n-that" arguments by throwing them off natural cliffs, or dropping them into natural oceans. Sure, some of these wankers exist. They also reject vaccinating their children because it's not natural, starve someone elses growing body of protein and iron in the quest for vague vegan virtues and spend thousands on "natural" rubbish like homeopathy, MMS, placebo acupuncture, natural medicine and detoxification scams.

Unfortunately the vote grabbing waste of time, money, print, airtime, interviews and ultimately lives surrounding the reclassification of cannabis in the UK went ahead. If there's any positive side to this it's that only panic merchants who stand to gain politically are now revealed. Despite the ACMD scientists warning against it, the decision went ahead. This launched "drug free" devotees like Jo Baxter of Drug Free Australia [who dismisses education department guidelines] and Chair Craig Thompson to demand the same, whilst lying like champions about cannabis. Suffice it to say, support for right wing rhetoric is well met with fact based objection.

1. Scientists attack plan to upgrade cannabis.
2. Lords must stop plan to reclassify cannabis.
3. Cannabis laws being toughened to appease public.
4. Experts dismiss case for cannabis reclassification.
5. No smoke without fear - cannabis and psychosis.

It takes only a short time to discover the UK government failed its public, and did so amidst calls for legalisation, all round easing of penalties and the steadily growing cries for mature policy changes. There simply is no 'pro-drug' lobby. In the ideology struggle it's war mongering, scare tactics and punitive responses, versus respect for science, human rights and harm reduction.

The question one might ask Australias ABC is when do we hear of all facts pertaining to a failed war on drugs, regularly and fairly? Who shall expose the true cost of successive governments failing to accept reality, lest power be lost. 

Articles of relevance here.

Gags,
23 MB, 58 min,58

Welcome to a two part look at sloppy science reporting from Australias "premier flagship science programme"; Catalyst. In part one, we examine the falsehood and hype to spring from - of all things - a meta-analysis on cannabis use and psychosis, published in the Lancet in 2007.

In part two, we look at media responses that never made it into the mainstream moral panic presses where it was claimed one off cannabis use increased risk of psychosis by 40%. To make it worse, the moral panic button of increasing the drug classification severity of cannabis had been pushed progressively by UK politicians. The UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised against bending to rhetorical vote herding, citing lack of evidence to justify raising the classification of cannabis. That is their job, after all.

However, the UK public were... well, off their faces on hysteria. It was the Skyhook of illicit drug nightmare, the boogey plant, the alien intelligence... the "addictive killer skunk" whatdunnit. This was later explored by David Blunkett, former Home Secretary who said laws were being "toughened to appease the public". A public I might add that had been subject to tabloid insults on this topic for years. Remember The Independents "apology" of March 2007?

Back in 2008 Dr. Jonica Newby of ABC Catalyst chose to report on the Lancet article as if it really was the "final verdict" she very, very stupidly - for any scientist - promised. In Marijuana Madness Catalyst made a fair hash of the meaning of data - how we interpret science - around cannabis and psychosis. Their confidence was hatched on the back of this media hype in the UK and a growing chorus of old familiar panic merchants here.

Before we move on, I'd like to remind readers I object to naught but bad science, fear greatly that we shall fail heavy cannabis abusers due to false convictions born of bigotry, and in the process condemn thousands to a life of limited choices, social dependence, fruitless coercion/diversion/hospitalisation and prolonged marginalisation. Finally, it is the overstating of an already well known problem by our conservative guardians that has chilling consequences.

Even more final is that evidence rebukes in totality much of the contemporary promotion of panic. Bible propheteers and Young Earth Creationists, Drug Free Australia, recently published a range of fallacious conclusions drawn from a collation of junk science, biased science and obscure findings headed with the eye popping but intellectually repugnant title; "Cannabis - suicide, schizophrenia and other ill effects". Like all topics humans find suitable to the "evangelistic" approach, such biased and blinkered nonsense may well be cathartic for the anal retentive Thought Police amongst us. However to the professional it is evidence only that matters. And as cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid therapy continues to improve the lives of those fighting debilitating disease, it is no surprise to learn DFA have picked up their discriminating against our vulnerable.

This Four Corners article references activity in the UK in late 2001. Despite Australian researchers favouring a cautious approach the facts have been distorted by drug-free proponents. Simply put, 'medicinal cannabis is a covert attempt to legalise cannabis by the back door'. No research, no pilot studies, no bipartisan discourse. A fact sheet here helps place things in context. The NSW cancer council have cautious information here. Ample information may be accessed here at the Medical Cannabis Information Service. In July 2003 Catalyst reported on the issue of medicinal cannabis.

The facts have been distorted quite successfully by the 'drug-free' moral guardians, many of whom stand to benefit financially and politically should we follow their pseudo-science beyond Creationism, miracle cures and adherence to scripture. Suffice it to say, evolution is not the only discipline under threat. Science in general is seen as an evil in dissonance to Gods word.

The Mental Health Council of Australia published Where there's smoke... cannabis and mental health, in 2006. It stressed the paucity of conclusive data. They concluded in part;

This is not the same as a conclusive "no, cannabis does not cause psychotic illness". Likewise, it isn't conclusive - or a "final verdict" the other way either. Indeed, reading the 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, one is reminded of similar observations heard today. Even when minuscule differences are found, such as a 0.00125% increased risk for cannabis smokers - as the Lancet reported, the Daily Mail screamed, "Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%". Then Fox, then the NHS, then the BBC.... viral panic over simply absurd fabrications. See below for clairification.

As with media worthy meta-analyses this was presented as "new data" here in Australia, and across the globe. However a meta-analysis can only "find" what it analyses. In this case cannabis and psychosis association. The Lancet published their don't miss it media blurb, Cannabis use and risk of psychosis in later life on Friday, July 27th, 2007. See page one of thirteen,

We can confirm of course the authors own summary. Or if you check page four of thirteen you'll find the original text of the Lancets meta-analysis paper entitled, Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review.

Whether cannabis can cause psychotic or affective symptoms that persist beyond transient intoxication is unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence pertaining to cannabis use and occurrence of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes.

The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.

So, however impressive the data we cannot ignore the language. "We conclude there's now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life". This is a long way from claiming as did Jonica, "the data's in".... "final verdict".... "couldn't find psychosis because we'd been looking in the wrong places...". Compare this hypothetical statement as representative of a "final verdict":

World health authorities, acting upon conclusive data, replicated across the globe, have taken proactive measures to inform all adolescents, their parents, schools... that the use of cannabis will result in a serious case of intractable schizophrenia at a later period in life.

My point is semantic trickery. Observe: "Now there's sufficient [not lots, an abundance or irrefutable] evidence to warn [not act to stop/prevent] ... could [not will, or will if...] increase their risk" [not certainly raise by Y percent], is pretty tame. Apart from young adults laughing in the face of risk it sure isn't saying X Will Be The Case. In fact causality is not ever shown. What else is at play here?

In Will one joint really make you schizoid?, Maia Szalavitz makes a calm, rational case;

Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.

What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study need to ask?  First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot,though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.

So what are we really missing? It's true the crudely labelled "COMT gene" got a mention. The caper here is reasonably basic. Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase is an enzyme that catalyses neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine... in fact the catecholamines. In managing the 'building blocks' and blueprint of dopamine, this enzyme must be specific. Humans with a polymorphism [different gene] switch one amino acid in building the enzyme. How do people develop this enzyme? They inherit two recessive gene copies from their parents. Why don't their parents have problems? They [almost exclusively, unless carrying two recessive copies] have a regular gene which is dominant. Upon conception it's the two recessives that make the grade in certain people.

The imperfect blueprint [gene] leads to a subtle difference at the molecular level, issues with psychosis, executive functioning and some subtle neurocognitive effects. Despite the carry on, cannabis ingestion is not certainly going to lead to psychosis. The COMT variant also relates to "being alive" and "length of time being alive" as compounding the onset of psychosis. My guess is if you're alive - indeed the longer you're alive - the greater the chance of smoking cannabis. No, I'm not dismissing it in a frivolous manner, but will not ignore simply existing with the COMT polymorphism is itself a fast-track to psychosis. So, how?

Well, the gene 'blueprint' that builds the Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase enzyme isn't written perfectly in the polymorphism form. In fact it uses the amino acid called valine where it should use methionine. It can still break down dopamine but at four times the rate, leaving the dopaminergic synapses less stimulated. It is this lower or shorter sustained neurodynamic effect in the post synaptic neuron that is associated with cognitive deficits. In the true fashion of neurokinetics and the resultant neurodynamic effect, note here it is less dopamine - not more - that is the problem.

In all "cannabis and psychosis" ranting we are told it is excessive dopamine that is the cause. Then there's the truly concerning fact that we seek to increase with medication, dopamine levels in Parkinsons patients. We give them COMT inhibitors. These drugs "save" dopamine building blocks like Levodopa from being broken down by the COMT enzyme and in all these years, not one episode of induced psychosis has been recorded in these populations. Still, the blinkered view of trouble makers like Cohen - who admits colleagues scream abuse at him - knows no bounds. This - IMHO - may lead to insouciant assumption or generalisations that colour our willingness to be open minded. Viz a viz:

Could it be a case of ill people smoking cannabis to obtain the antipsychotic, CBD, as medicine? Could it be the role of THC in mimicking anandamide - the "bliss molecule"? What of the relationship then of reduced anandamide in psychotically ill humans and the provision of "analogue anandamide" [THC] and anti psychotic CBD only found in cannabis? Despite the junk science behind so called studies into cannabis potency, could it be the documented fact that hydroponic cannabis has an imbalance in the THC/CBD ratio, favouring THC? Could it be ratios of many cannabinoids that mimic endocannabinoids, more than a single molecules concentration at play here?

Surely, we must have an epidemic if as Newby claims, we "haven't been looking in the right places". It turns out Jonica Newby of ABCs Catalyst programme was misleading viewers. The "right place" was actually psychotic patients. My, what a surprise.

And what did we find? This is not a dismissal, but a clarification. According to the Lancet itself the "dose response correction" makes this rather special science. According to reported data, the UKs 6.2 million cannabis smokers presented 800 schizophrenics who would not be thusly afflicted if they never smoked cannabis.

Ergo; 0.00125% of cannabis smokers make up Jonica Newbys "final verdict". Or perhaps cannabis smokers should know that 99.99875% of them will not develop schizophrenia.

In part two we delve deeper into the facts and the reporting of the opposite conclusions.

Related articles here.

Gags,
24 MB. 01.09.18

The madness of reefer madness reaches fever pitch. This episode we hear how Harry J. Anslinger gets a clever idea from the "machine gun ban" to devise a truly ridiculous mode of licencing cannabis. This ensures he is able to convince Congress to pass the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

To secure a licence, one must have cannabis in hand. To have done so, is to breach licencing conditions and be charged with illegal possession. Once a criminal, further thoughts of obtaining a licence are pointless. Penalties involve a maximum sentence of five years jail and a $2,000 fine. The first offender arrested is sentenced to four years and a $1,000 fine for possession.

One of illicit drug laws earlist skeptics and defender of secular values and human rights, Dr. William Woodward of the American Medical Association testifies to the USA Congress that no evidence exists to support Anslingers outrageous claims of the "dirty, dangerous" drug he has described. Indeed, the "Assassin of Youth" [marijuana]. Dr. Woodward is considered a sheer party pooper, abused and dismissed out of hand. Incredibly thanks to John Howards predetermined agenda and Drug Free Australia, Australians witnessed the same in 2007 when the Chair of a Parliamentary Inquiry, Bronwyn Bishop, slandered internationally renowned researchers as "immoral drug industry elites".

The mayor of New York comissions a "blue ribbon" study to examine Anslingers claims of evidence only to find also, none exists. The cannabis used and examined came from Anslinger himself. This leads to a suppression of scientific research on medicinal cannabis and cannabis abuse that remains until today.

The law is overturned, for obvious reasons, in the late 1960s thanks to Timothy Leary tuning in before he dropped out. Cannabis is then outlawed in 1970, having "no medical purpose". We pick up where we left off in part one, listening to David Musto of Yale University recount discussions with Anslinger over his feelings of hopelessness and ultimately successful planning.

Finally we touch on the issue of cannabis induced psychosis and supporting evidence - the topic of the next episode.

More articles of interest are in the ever growing pile here.

Gags,
26MB, 58min, 57

This March experts from around the world will meet in Vienna to decide upon the future of the War on Drugs.

We've looked into the primary issues here with Prohibition: The I.N.C.B., Drug War Disaster and Drug Policy Beyond 2008. Please have a scan of these posts or a listen for most of the relevant data and references. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs will debate the future of global drug policy and sign off on resolutions. It is irrefutable that the promised "drug free world by 2008" was as absurd as present promises we are "winning" the war on drugs - even if it does earn international crime more than the oil trade.

In the last four years, gradually rising to a fever pitch of moral hysteria, the argument for "compassionate" morality focused initiatives has been honed to a lethal denial of reality. Primarily this approach known either as the 'zero tolerance', 'prohibitionist', 'drug war' and more recently the intuitively benign 'drug free' movement has been cleverly marketed by the religious right and propheteers of biblical fundamentalism, much like the case for teaching 'Intelligent Design' - actually religious Creationism - in science classrooms.

This episode is the first of two parts looking at the history of cannabis prohibition and the false claims and marketed misinformation that made such out of proportion laws possible. Once again I shall remind visitors I do not support drug use. However I do respect evidence, democracies and will speak up for human rights. Indeed it is the harms stemming from drug use that demand moral bases for public health policy be dissected and exposed as the enforced conservatism they actually are. Indeed the similarities between early - mid 20th century - claims and the recent spike in cannabis related myth is striking.

One can only hope the resolutions gained at the Beyond 2008 forum and promoted by the UNODC are respected. Health Responses, Human Rights and Harm Reduction. It does already however, especially with the rank contrariness thrust forth from the provocative World Forum Against Drugs, seem most likely we will see only gradual increases in harm reduction despite the positive results accompanying virtually every initiative. The WFAD, held in Stockholm, Sweden produced an astonishing document designed to refute the humane focus of the Beyond 2008 resolutions, gained weeks earlier.

Some argue the war on drugs is lost whilst others insist the documented failures of "Just Say No" are an illusion. It should be noted drug war supporters and Just Say No devotees also believe in "virgin pledges", faith healing and the promotion of biblical doctrine over biology, psychology, sociology or indeed any evil "post Darwinism" pursuit. Refutation of prohibitions breath taking failures come with the apportionment of blame toward those who support harm reduction; condoms cause AIDS, clean needles cause injecting habits and methadone causes addiction. The second link in this paragraph commences with a claim, "because the 10 commandments have proven so successful...". Thankfully, economic reasoning seem to have a fine, durable position against murderous drug wars or the promotion of enduring ignorance.

Suffice it to say, apart from scoring even more lucrative government contracts to match the tax and religious concessions the drug free movement has naught to offer but superstitious, emotive and at times slanderous claims. Such as Drug Free Australias attempt to blame public health identities for saddling us with a "disease called sex, drugs and rock-n-roll". Or drug industry elites and their quest to profit from a global conspiracy to "normalise" illicit drug use, not accept the health problems of the inevitable challenges it brings. In truth Australia led the world in progressive policy initiatives and ever since these evidenced backed concepts have been undermined by the religious right and the bloody right. This is the age of Blood Born Viruses and no amount of promising oneself to Jesus can evoke immunity - particularly immunity from reality.

It is the fear of harm reduction initiatives and the all powerful Wrong Message of Destruction [WMOD] that conservatives fear. Despite harm reduction receiving only 15% of finances for Australias policy of Harm Minimisation - the rest going to Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction - the religious fundamentalist mind simply cannot accept the policy as a whole. It "reeks of filthy immorality" and "capitulates to the hedonistic delirium of modernity", I was once informed. What of our publics health? The "bible is clear, and we shall fall as did Sodom" one practising GP claims. But it is not so much the spectre of condoms, needles and education pamphlets.

It is the prong of "Demand Reduction" that simply by existing suggests demand for illicit drugs exist. Experience tells us harm reduction successfully manages - not encourages - drug related harms, which are often prohibition specific if we remember that many identical compounds are prescribed by the million daily. Hence harm reduction is to opponents "a covert way of normalising then legalising drug use".

Notice this is unthinkable to the conservative, despite the level of addictive behaviour and prescribed drugs rendering illicit drug use a drop in the bucket. Despite the reality that harm reduction actually manages this reality. Saving lives by the minute by accepting this "noramality" of human nature. One doesn't have to love reality, but denial is sheer superstitious folly. And it is denial that gives voice to "drug free" nonsense over understanding human nature and human rights. Little wonder harm reduction is seen by the superstitious as a cause, and not the solution it is documented by the truckload as being.

Yet ultimately it is the mere suggestion one may fail the family value test and be affronted with a community that assumes drug demand will almost always be a reality. It is the inherent suggestion of moral failure that conservatives struggle with. Surely their perfect parenting, faith, dutiful praying and virgin children need no such policy sending Wrong Messages. Open and honest discourse is to be denied and those who allude to such, slandered and labelled as conspirators. What other explanation can there be? Michael Duffy who wrote the piece linked above, was publically denounced by Drug Free Australia and ordered to retract his claims. He ignored them.

The USAs 1914 Harrison Tax Act [text] prompted the wide scale jailing of MDs for five years, as doctors refused to deny the Hippocratic Oath in favour of licencing demands [possession], ultimately finding resolution in a 1919 Supreme Court case upholding the validity of the act. Ever since the resultant prohibition has been controversial. Cannabis was criminalised in 1937. Every step of the way, the religious right - then known as The Temperance Movement - have kept a watchful eye on societies bold insistence to enjoy life and consent to safe, well understood behaviour.  Corruption is a constant in every nation on the planet and will - IMHO - be a primary variable to try to manage in the post prohibition world.

Politicians are easy prey for our cunning religious cronies as witnessed by lethal claims against condoms as sensible protection, abuse under the roof of tax payer funded "churches", handouts to obscure cults and the exploitation of vulnerable in need and at risk human beings. In the UK last year, cannabis was upgraded against evidence and the advice of the governments illicit drug advisory body to appease hardliners. Immediately Australian 'drug free' groups increased their "focus" on cannabis demanding the same response and a call to banish the word "soft" in relation to cannabis. One can of course almost hear the stamping out of marijuana joints by teens now that they know cannabis is class B and no longer C.

This professionally produced audio features references to the fallacious and manipulative tricks applied by Harry Anslinger, who can be followed in this 1938 Marijuana Conference. The similarities between this piece of history and present day attempts to slow the dismantling of prohibition are compelling.

One can only hope level heads rule this March, and if not that the UNODC chief, Antonio Maria Costa sticks to his word on health and human rights.

Stay tuned for part 2.

Note: episodes may be delayed. Sincere apologies.

Other references are here.

Gags,
20 MB, 41 min, 34.