19 the grounds of illegality, irrationality and unfairness. This point however was not addressed at all in court indicating that Edwin's appeal was either misunderstood or the key factors of his complaint were completely overlooked. Indicating that perhaps the courts themselves are either unclear on the rights of those facing drugs charges or just simply chose to ignore them. Edwin Stratton’s case: Mr. Stratton who appeared in Soft Secrets issue no. 3/2009, was at home when a fire broke out in a neighboring premises, tenants of the street had to be quickly evacuated. During the evacuation procedure, police discovered cannabis plants that Edwin was growing cannabis for his medical condition, (he unfortunately suffers from Coeliacs disease.) Although Edwin was fully co-operative with police and admitted the fact that he privately grew cannabis plants in his home, he rejected a police caution, highlighting that it is discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1998 stating that such laws are not enforced to people who choose to brew the equally or more harmful drug, alcohol. However Edwin was charged with producing the drug and refused to make a plea. Instead taking his case to the high court, who ruled out any leniency towards growing medicinal cannabis despite the fact that Edwin’s claims of inequality had nothing to do with how he used the cannabis in itself, his main concern was, the false administration of the ‘Misuse of Drugs Act 1971’ on
Alan Taylor’s case - Alan Taylor is a secondary school science teacher, judged by Ofsted to be an "excellent" teacher. Upon the discovery by the police that he was cultivating marijuana for his own private and personal use, he was suspended from work for many months prior to his hearing. Some time before Alan’s trial, the police made complaints to both his employees and the education authority before he had even been charged with any sort of offence. The school was advised to take action, by doing so they lost a great teacher and a valuable asset to the school. The way in which the police conducted this was both in breech of Alan’s human and civil rights and also in relation to this, what was a private pursuit for the person in question was publicly used against his character without just reasoning before any official charges had been made against him. The organisation Liberty claimed that ‘police disclosures of their suspicions to the school and education authority
in this case are challengeable in law. We are pursuing this issue with formal complaints and possible legal action. In terms of the criminal matter the essence of the claim is to assert the primacy of Parliament and the rule of law, and to protect these principles from abuse by the people who have been entrusted with administering the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.’ How the police treated Mr. Taylor in light of this was both highly unfair and did not comply with either human rights, nor was it legal to act upon his arrest in this way before a ‘fair’ trial’ had taken place. Alan’s case was dismissed from court and I believe that he awaits to take the case to crown court. Edwin eventually received a suspended sentence and ordered to pay court costs, However, he now intends to take the case to a court of appeal with which you can find out more about on the drugs equality alliance website. ‘The Misuse of Drugs Act’ was created over forty years ago now, and although in this time public and scientific knowledge of substance misuse whether the substance is deemed to be illicit or commonplace has changed and evolved dramatically. The same cannot be said for drugs policy; in fact it seems that it refuses to develop alongside research findings as it once promised to do. Many different governments and Politian’s have been in place since the seventies and besides shuffling substances up and down the clas-
The Wind of Change Blows From Across the Pond Dr John Dee
Well, who would have thought it? America, the anti drug monolith has had a change of heart. Specifically, the American Medical Association (AMA) has had something of an about face on cannabis, in particular the whole medical marijuana debate. “The American Medical Association?” you may say. “Who cares?” you may add. But you’d be wrong to do so. The point here, and believe me, it really is a biggie, is that as a group, medics are among the most conservative you’ll find (coming, in my view, in the same sort of class as lawyers and bankers). This is completely in spite of early years as medical students spent getting pissed and pushing each other up and down the street in shopping trolleys (or maybe that’s only in the UK); once they’re able to practice, once they’re in the club, then it tends to change (see politicians for another good example of this type of behaviour).
But as usual, I digress. The story here is that for the past 72 years, the AMA has maintained that weed has absolutely no therapeutic value and should therefore remain a Schedule 1 drug. This means it’s classed along with other substances with “no medical value” such as LSD (!), cocaine (!!) and heroin (!!!). I’m not going to get into the pros and cons of this; hopefully the exclamation marks will convey my views on the matter. A Schedule 1 controlled substance also means that, if you’re caught with it, you can go to prison. In some states in the U.S., caught with a bit of grass three times and you can go to prison forever. But here’s the thing: an AMA committee, the Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) have produced a report called "Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes", wherein they basically say “You know all that stuff we’ve been banging on about for the past 72 years? That’s right, all the stuff about dope
being responsible for everything from mental illness to ‘moral degeneration’ to spree killing. Well, it’s all shit, and weed actually does have a medical value. And yes, we know that you told us so and have been telling us so for pretty much every one of these 72 years, but, hey, we’ve been in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and successive governments for all this time and, well, you just don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and you definitely don’t take a crap on your own doorstep. We’re truly, profoundly sorry that we’ve been a fundamental part of the apparatus of government oppression and that our (in) action has caused suffering to individuals and indeed to pretty big sectors of the community.” Actually, that’s not what they say at all. In fact, the whole report is a completely apology-free zone. But hey, ho, it’s probably very churlish of me to dwell upon this point. So let’s, as they say, draw a line under it and move on.
sification scale periodically, scarcely little else has been done (either through ignorance or fear of losing crucial votes from majority publics) to produce a fair system when exercising drug prohibition. Instead government has focused solely on isolating certain drugs and magnifying the little supporting evidence that they have to maintain current opinions. On the other hand they have also done very little to bring to light the equally damaging effects of non – prohibited substances regardless to how much more harmful some of them are than the so called illicit drugs themselves. It also seems unfortunately that basic human rights often go out of the window when somebody is found to be partaking in activities associated with certain drug use; regardless of how private and peaceful the perpetrator has been with his or her actions. All information used in this article and more can be found in the following places: http://www.drugequality.org/ (For more info on both Edwin Stratton and Alan Taylor, also a lot more in depth information and articles on the subjects.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8334774.stm (with regards to professor Nutt.) http://www.petertatchell.net/civil_ liberties/cannabispolicyunequalandillegal.htm (Features Edwin’s case also plus other information on the reclassification of cannabis.)
The report continues thus: "Short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis...” (Yes, folks, you read that correctly: smoked cannabis) “...reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis." I think it’s the bit about smoked cannabis that surprises me the most. Given that America appears to be full of health and lifestyle fascists, the idea that anyone might be allowed to smoke anything (whether it’s “good” for you or not) is quite amazing. Perhaps more amazing is the fact that “smoked” cannabis kind of implies weed one can grow oneself, rather than using some sort of piss poor pharmaceutical company analogue. Given that America is Corporate Babylon, full of fast buck chancers, has someone taken their eye off the ball here? Whatever, this is one story that I for one will definitely be following with interest as the outcome is sure to have a knock on effect for the rest of the world. As ever, your comments are always welcome: Dr John Dee dimethyltryptamine777@hotmail.com
