Archive for July, 2007
July 30th, 2007 | 
Author: I feel like a proper foot solider in the battle over cannabis. The government’s recent announcement that they would review its current status in the UK as a “Class C” drug is crazy. They say and I quote, that this review is “likely to result in reclassification back into “Class B””. That’s even madder!
I don’t feel I can let this happen without at least putting up some sort of fight. Even though the media would like you to think otherwise, there is actually no genuine case to reclassify cannabis. In fact, if the argument is presented objectively, then the smart conclusion to reach is that full legalisation is the correct move.
I’m hardly the first person to call for cannabis to be legalised and I’m not likely to be the last. Many people feel the same, as witnessed in countless opinion polls.
In response to the siege on cannabis, I’ve put together several entries which put forth a much more balanced view, based on genuine science and personal experience, especially, my own personal experiences with cannabis, which I will briefly share with you now.
I’ve been a daily cannabis smoker for over 26 years. For 25 years of that, I’ve been smoking mainly “skunk weed” as it has come to be known, so I have some degree of authority on the subject.
For the record, what is known as “skunk weed” is not new, but has been around and available for decades. All it really is, are particular strains of cannabis, that have been selectively grown and bred for their positive qualities, be they taste, yield or potency. The techniques used are no different from those used by farmers everywhere.
“Skunk weed” is not genetically modified, as I have seen reported in the press, because that would be ridiculous. Can you imagine some white lab coat wearing scientist abandoning his research into curing cancer, or AIDS in favour of genetically engineering stronger weed? It’s just ludicrous!
These stronger strains of cannabis, are in reality 2 or 3 times stronger than weed growing wild, and not 25-30 times stronger, as reported recently. Also, they have been commercially available for a very long time, decades in fact. I first tried it in 1982, some 25 years ago.
People who smoke cannabis should not be criminalised. It’s a plant, for fuck’s sake. For most users of cannabis, the high is pleasant, relaxing and enjoyable. If it doesn’t agree with you, then please, don’t smoke any more, but don’t try and prevent those of us who do enjoy it, from doing so!
Ask any policeman if they agree with the current cannabis legislation and most will tell you that “Class C” doesn’t go far enough and they would prefer to see it legalised fully. Then ask them if they would rather deal with someone under the influence of weed or alcohol and once they stop laughing, they will tell you that a drunk is always the most dangerous.
Alcohol, is legal and freely available, yet is a horrible drug, with miserable side effects and can be directly linked to many of societies ills. From antisocial and violent behaviour on the streets, to domestic violence in the home, and the loss of productivity in business and industry, alcohol is at the root of all of this.
But is anyone calling for a ban on booze? Of course not! And besides, they tried that in America in the early decades of the last century and do you know what it resulted in? Organised crime and the mafia taking hold all over the country.
Let’s get the criminals out of the cannabis supply chain. Let’s turn it into the regulated, commercial industry it deserves to be!
I’ve posted a series of pieces today, which puts forth the positive arguments for cannabis. I’ve also put out a public offer to be the positive voice of cannabis smokers, to redress the balance in the coverage and comment on the subject, which is tending towards hysteria, rather than truth.
Here is a list of handy links to today’s cannabis series, please expect more on the subject to follow:
- Don’t just take my word for it (535)
- That Lancent cannabis study, the Daily Mail and truth (536)
- It’s not as black and white as they want you to believe (538)
- Demand and supply – another angle on the status of cannabis (539)
Please take the time to read all of it. You deserve to inform yourselves, so you can all better inform others.
If you smoke cannabis, or you’ve ever smoked it and you’ve enjoyed it, then your voice needs to be heard too!
The most basic principle of business is that demand influences supply. If people want something, whatever it is, then someone will be there to provide it. Demand creates the market economy and is the basis of capitalism.
If you are against the legalisation of cannabis, then you are against the very basic foundation of capitalism. I’ve said this before. There is a demand for cannabis, which means by virtue of the nature of capitalism there is a market supplying said demand.
The legal status of cannabis forces this market to be underground, untaxed and unregulated. I believe the correct technical term for this is a black market.
This black market in cannabis is responsible for many of the ills associated with its sale and distribution. From the shitty soapbar hash that was popular in the UK years ago, to the recent “grit weed” plague last year, can all be attributed to the unfortunate and unjustified laws which control cannabis.
Soapbar, for those of you who don’t know, is a horrible concoction made up of a mix of adulterants, such as shoe polish, wax, plastic and camel dung, with a tiny bit of cannabis. From what I’ve read, you were lucky if what you got was even 3% THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
Last year, the UK was inundated with a supply of adulterated herbal cannabis that became known as “grit weed”.
“Grit weed”, involved the illegal cannabis growers impregnating the buds of the plant with tiny, glass beads. This was done to make the buds appear more resinous and to bulk up the weight and increase profits. When you smoked grit weed, as many of us did, you noticed a funny, gritty feeling in your mouths. Users were advised to dispose of this tainted weed, rather than further risk their health.
If the supply of cannabis were regulated and controlled, then incidents such as those described above, would be a thing of the past. Furthermore, there would be no more street dealing and people under the age of 18 (or 21) would have a much harder time getting their hands on some.
At the moment, it is easier for someone under the age of 18 to score a bit of weed, then it is for them to secure a litre of vodka. Ask any 14 year old to find you some draw and it won’t take them long, but ask them to purchase you some alcohol and they will be far less successful. Booze isn’t sold from your mate’s cousin’s friend’s bedroom, but currently cannabis is.
Again, don’t take my word for it. Here’s a comment piece from the Independent newspaper, which I will provide in full, as well as a link back to the original. If the Independent objects to this, please contact me and I will remove the full text, but maintain the link.
===============
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2788635.ece
Deborah Orr: An unregulated, dangerous market – that’s the main problem with drugs
Published: 21 July 2007
“That didn’t take long, did it? It’s now a ritual of public life: a new influx of ministers means a new investigation into what illegal drugs, if any, they may have tried. The answer is that a lot of them have tried and hated cannabis, including Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary. Gordon Brown may have provided the ideal opportunity to place such a survey on the immediate agenda, what with his half-baked perorations about the re-reclassifying of cannabis. But it would all have happened anyway, for some reason, at some point, because it always does.
Public debate on drugs had taken an odd turn this week anyway, with the awful murder of Lucy Braham by William Jaggs being touted as proof that dangerous drugs had now reached the private school, Harrow, and therefore the highest echelons of society. The poor, sad spectre of Olivia Channon, who died of an overdose at Oxford in the early 1980s, was once again revived as a necessary counter-argument.
I’m not sure quite who believed the former to be anything other than nonsense anyway, since the history of drugs in Britain over the past 30 years has unequivocally been one of democratisation. As student acquaintances from the Oxford days of Jacqui Smith told The Times this week: “Posh people had proper drugs and voted SDP. Labour and Tories drank lager and had the odd spliff … [Drugs] was the territory of the posher, more fey places like Magdalen and New College.”
I can vouch for this myself. At a Scots university in the early 1980s I took lots of drugs. But such substances as cocaine or heroin were entirely unheard of, and right out of our financial league anyway. Our favourite was mushrooms, which grew free in the fields and could be dried for year-round use. We also took the speed that was manufactured by a drop-out medic, who was eventually imprisoned for his pains, and acid was a couple of quid for a 12-hour special-occasion trip. We also grew our own grass, while hash was a precious commodity, taken in the form of hot knives, which were much less wasteful than joints. At times of more desperate poverty we could be witnessed drying banana skins under the grill (never worked) or munching extremely copious amounts of nutmeg (not worth the effort).
The main problem with drugs now is that, if one discounts their total illegality, they operate in the most free, the most violent and the most globalised market there is. Damage limitation has to start there, not with the relatively innocent, annoyingly stubborn, arrogantly youthful end user.
There are many reasons why the focus on classification of cannabis is of little relevance to anything except the response of the local criminal justice system to its use, just as there are many reasons why the local criminal justice system can only ever be useful in dealing with a narrow aspect of the culture of drugs in our society.
In the case of cannabis, people buy it on the black, free market without knowing exactly what they are getting. Some cannabis is mild, because it contains little of the main ingredient, tetrahyrdocannabinol, and some of it is hazardously powerful, because it contains much more of it.
This is a fact of life because it is all illegal and all unregulated, and no amount of reclassification will get over this difficulty. For many, this is a no-brainer argument for legalisation.”
===============
I’m not the only sane, rational, honest person, sharing the truth about cannabis and the drugs market. There are others out there who want to keep you all well informed. You just need to look for the truth, amongst all the mendacity and lies.
I’m not the only one with first hand experience with cannabis. There are others out there, who are happy to share their stories with us.
One such person is Rufus May, a clinical psychologist, who works with Bradford’s Assertive Outreach team. He wrote a piece that was published in the Independent, that I think is worth sharing with you.
I’ll provide a link to the original, as well as the full text.
===========
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2814693.ece
“Rufus May: I smoked cannabis. I went mad. But life’s not that simple
Published: 29 July 2007
As the review published in The Lancet last week confirmed, studies have been finding an association between cannabis and psychotic experiences for the past 30 years. The reviewers looked at 35 studies and suggested that cannabis users have a 40 per cent increased chance of having psychotic experiences. They also say that 14 per cent of psychotic problems in the United Kingdom could be linked to cannabis use. But not all the evidence supports a simplistic causal link. For example, while the use of cannabis has gone up steadily over the past 30 years, the incidence of psychotic diagnoses has not. Yet the research coming out of the Institute of Psychiatry and this latest review from Bristol and Cardiff universities is putting growing pressure on the Government to reconsider its classification of cannabis as a class C drug.
Cause and effect are difficult to unravel. Are people with a tendency to hear voices or suffer from paranoia attracted to using cannabis to calm themselves or is the drug increasing the risk of these experiences? Perhaps both processes are happening. In my experience, both as a user and as a psychologist, cannabis can be both a tonic and a poison. Ultimately, like all drugs, it brings problems, but demonising it will not help.
At the age of 15 and 16 I smoked cannabis pretty heavily. It helped me escape the boredom of school life and fractious relations with my parents. It also helped me bury deeper anxieties about impending adulthood and my identity. I fell in love with the idea that this illicit weed could bring me serenity on a daily basis. Its forbidden status made me feel rebellious and cool. I became addicted to the ceremonious ritual of sticking the papers together and building the spliff that I hoped would transport my mind to a more peaceful place. But life has taught me that if you suppress things sooner or later they come back to haunt you. By the age of 18, I was drug free, trying to get over my first girlfriend leaving me and struggling to find a decent job. Instead of getting depressed, I slowly drifted into a dreamlike reality where I was spied upon and felt I had special spiritual powers. It culminated in being treated psychiatrically for a year and being given the rather unhelpful tag of schizophrenic. My recovery has involved largely steering clear of cannabis and finding more healthy ways to relax and stay calm and centred.
In my work, I help others who have developed psychotic experiences. Many of us choose to avoid using cannabis, but some feel it is helpful in dealing with anxiety and the side effects of the medication they are prescribed. My impression is that some people – and I would include myself in this category – do have a particular sensitivity to cannabis and need to be cautious with it. But I also feel there is a political agenda behind the current “blame the weed for mental illness” campaign. Psychiatrists such as Robin Murray and others spent many years in the 1990s – described as “the decade of the brain” – trying to find a biological and genetic cause for psychosis, but with little success. The latest focus on cannabis can be viewed as the dying gasp of the “blame the brain” brigade who seek to justify a biological approach to madness.
Such an emphasis on chemical causes suits the pharmaceutical industry and obscures the bigger truth that mental distress is caused by emotional traumas and troubles. People who react badly to cannabis but continue to use it are trying to suppress feelings such as anger, guilt and loneliness. It is the social situations that lie behind these emotions that we really need to understand and address.”
===========
If this man’s views aren’t worthy of consideration, then we don’t have a chance. His first hand experience, combined with his professional qualifications, make him uniquely capable of putting forth a rational view on the subject.
Don’t let the truth go unheard! The truth deserves to be shared more than the lies!
I’m an expert on cannabis, mainly through many years of personal experience. While that certainly makes me qualified to share my thoughts and opinions, there are other experts worth listening to as well.
The Lancet report last week and the questionable methods used in its preparation need to be redressed.
My friends at the Guardian newspaper have been very good at finding experts who want the truth to be known and are not looking at scoring political points based on some twisted agenda.
Here’s an example of that sort of reporting, I’ll provide a link back to the original, plus the full text of the article. If the Guardian has any objections to this, please get in touch and I will remove the full text, but maintain the link.
=================
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,2136450,00.html
“Experts dismiss case for cannabis reclassification
David Batty and agencies
Friday July 27, 2007
Drug experts today said there was still insufficient evidence to reclassify cannabis, after a report suggested the drug could increase the risk of schizophrenia by at least 40%.
The Labour MP Brian Iddon and Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry, said there would be no benefit gained by restoring cannabis to a class B drug.
Their comments came after a report published today in medical journal the Lancet estimated there were at least 800 people suffering serious psychosis in the UK as a result of smoking cannabis.
The Home Office said last night that the report’s findings would be considered in a review of the 2004 decision to downgrade cannabis to a class C drug.
The review was prompted by fears that the potent “skunk” form of cannabis was triggering schizophrenia.
Prof Murray, an expert on cannabis-induced psychosis, said the Lancet study added “very little” to the understanding of the health risks associated with smoking the drug.
He said: “Politicians tend to think reclassification is important. It isn’t. Fourteen-year-olds smoking spliffs have no idea of the difference between B and C. If it were reclassified to B, it wouldn’t affect 14-year-olds because it’s already illegal for them anyway. What is needed is education about the risks.”
The study, which is an analysis of previous research, estimated that 14% of 15-34-year-olds currently suffering from schizophrenia were ill because they smoked cannabis
Prof Murray said: “Individuals who – perhaps with some mild predisposition – would not otherwise have developed schizophrenia will do so because of taking cannabis. It’s a bit like how people with only a minimal predisposition to diabetes will develop it if they eat too much.”
Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse, said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B.
“I don’t think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might – possibly for genetic reasons – trigger psychosis at an earlier age.”
The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising “hundreds of thousands of young people” if the status of the drug was changed.
“If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won’t be evidence-based but for political reasons,” he said.
“Since we reduced the classification of cannabis from B to C the usage is going down, so what’s the point of muddying the debate again by this yo-yo political policy?”
The drugs charity DrugScope also challenged the calls to reclassify cannabis, saying there was no evidence that it would cut use of the drug.
The DrugScope chief executive, Martin Barnes, said: “The challenge is to ensure that information on cannabis use and the associated risks is understood by teachers and health professionals working with young people and conveyed in ways that young people will listen to.
“Shock tactics alone rarely work, but we need to get across that just because you know people who appear to be OK using cannabis, it doesn’t mean that they are, or that it will be OK for you.”
=================
To summarise, in bullet points:
- Labour MP Brian Iddon and Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry, said there would be no benefit gained by restoring cannabis to a class B drug.
- Prof Murray said the Lancet study added “very little” to the understanding of the health risks associated with smoking the drug.
- Dr Iddon, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse, said the Lancet study did not convince him to return cannabis to class B. He went on to say said there was a danger of criminalising “hundreds of thousands of young people” if the status of the drug was changed.
- The drugs charity DrugScope also challenged the calls to reclassify cannabis, saying there was no evidence that it would cut use of the drug.
The truth is out there, you just need to delve deeper. It’s hiding being the shock headlines and badly researched data. I’ll always bring you the truth, for the truth deserves to be heard!
My friends at the Guardian newspaper are giving me hope that the truth in the debate about cannabis reclassification will be an honest one. The government can’t ignore the facts and only quote the lies.
As you’ve no doubt read or heard, the well-known British medical journal, The Lancet, has recently published a study into the effects of cannabis use. Rather than try to debunk the questionable science and research techniques used in preparing this report myself, I would prefer to share an article from the Science section of the Guardian.
Here it is, with a link to the original and the full text. If the Guardian objects to me posting the full text, please feel free to contact me, asking for its removal. I will keep the link back to the original though.
==========
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/28/drugs.drugsandalcohol
“Cannabis data comes to the crunch
by Ben Goldacre
Saturday July 28 2007
You know when cannabis hits the news you’re in for a bit of fun, and this week’s story about cannabis causing psychosis was no exception. The paper was a systematic review and then a “meta-analysis” of the data which has already been collected, looking at whether people who smoke cannabis are subsequently more likely to have symptoms of “psychosis” or diagnoses of schizophrenia. Meta-analysis is, simply, where you gather together all of the numbers from all the studies you can find into one big spreadsheet, and do one big calculation on all of them at once, to get the most statistically powerful result possible.
Now I don’t like to carp, but it’s interesting that the Daily Mail got even these basics wrong, under their headline “Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%”. Firstly “the researchers, from four British universities, analysed the results of 35 studies into cannabis use from around the world. This suggested that trying cannabis only once was enough to raise the risk of schizophrenia by 41%.”
In fact they identified 175 studies which might have been relevant, but on reading them, it turned out that there were just 11 relevant papers, describing seven actual datasets. The Mail made this figure up to “35 studies” by including 24 separate papers which the authors also found on cannabis and depression, although the Mail didn’t mention depression at all.
They also said that “previous studies have shown a clear link between cannabis use in the teenage years and mental illness in later life”. They then described some of these previous studies. These were the very studies that are summarised in the new Lancet paper.
But what was left out is as interesting as what was added in. The authors were clear – as they always are – that there were problems with a black-and-white interpretation of their data, and that cause and effect could not be stated simply. For ongoing daily users, as an example, it’s difficult to be clear that cannabis is causing people to have a mental illness, because their symptoms may simply be due to being high on cannabis all the time. Perhaps they’d be fine if they were clean.
It was also interesting to see how the risk was numerically reported. The most dramatic figure is always the “relative risk increase”, or rather: “cannabis doubles the risk of psychosis”, “cannabis increases the risk by 40%”. Because schizophrenia is comparatively rare, translated this into real numbers this works out – if the figures in the paper are correct, and causality is accepted – that about 800 yearly cases of schizophrenia are attributable to cannabis. This is not belittling the risk, merely expressing it clearly.
But what’s really important, of course, is what you do with this data. Firstly, you can mispresent it, and scare people. Obviously it feels great to be so self-righteous, but people will stop taking you seriously. After all, you’re talking to a population of young people who have worked out that you routinely exaggerate the dangers of drugs, not least of all with the ridiculous “modern cannabis is 25 times stronger” fabrication so beloved by the media and politicians.
And craziest of all is the fantasy that reclassifying cannabis will stop six million people smoking it, and so eradicate those 800 extra cases of psychosis. If anything, for all drugs, increased prohibition may create market conditions where more concentrated and dangerous forms are more commercially viable. We’re talking about communities, and markets, with people in them, after all: not molecules and neuroreceptors.”
==========
As you can see, the hype and hysteria is in overdrive, but the truth is there, if people choose to share it with you.
My purpose at the moment, is to bring you all the truth on the subject, in the hopes that we can all make an informed decision. And yes, I’m talking to you, Mr. Politician Man! Do what’s right, not what you think people want you to do out of misplaced and ill-informed fear.
As a more than casual observer of all things media related, I’ve been enjoying the little spat that seems to be going on between the Independent and the Independent on Sunday.
It seems the 2 different versions of this usually liberal newspaper are split on their views regarding the status of cannabis.
The Independent on Sunday, until recently, was quite vocal in their call for the full legalisation of weed. Then, a few months ago, in response to the resurgent hysteria, they did a complete about-face on the subject. Since then, rarely does a Sunday go by, without another unsubstantiated scare-story regarding cannabis appearing in the IoS.
The daily Independent, the Monday to Saturday version, however, has strived to maintain a sense of balance and honesty on the subject.
I would like to share an example of this genuine reporting in the Independent, right now and I hope the Indy doesn’t mind if I quote the full text, as well as providing a link to the original. If you do object, please get in touch and I will remove the full text, but keep the link.
=======================
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2788634.ece
“Debunked: politicians’ excuse that cannabis has become stronger
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 21 July 2007
In a week in which Gordon Brown signalled a toughening of the law on cannabis and Labour MPs queued up to confess to smoking dope in their youth – a dozen cabinet ministers at the last count – there has been a widespread assumption bandied about that the country is in the grip of an epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis.
But there is no evidence that cannabis poses a greater threat to health today than it did 30 years ago, and reports that stronger forms of the drug, called skunk, have 25 times the potency are wildly exaggerated. The joint, symbol of peace and love in the 1960s, has become a totem of degenerate Britain – increasingly linked with mental breakdown and axe-wielding maniacs.
The Prime Minister, who has ordered the second review of the classification of cannabis in two years, is said by insiders to want to reverse the decision of the former home secretary, David Blunkett, who downgraded the drug from class B to class C in 2004.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which examined the issue 18 months ago, will be asked to do so again. It concluded in its report in December 2005 that the strength of cannabis resin (hash) had changed little over 30 years and was about 5 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Skunk, it found was 10 to 15 per cent THC – two to three times as strong, not 25 times.
Professor Leslie Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University, said the widespread belief that skunk was 20 to 30 times as powerful was “simply not true”.
The biggest change over recent decades has been in the strength of indoor-cultivated herbal cannabis, but even this has only doubled to 12 to 14 per cent THC. Although exceptionally strong skunk can be found on the market in Britain, it always has been available, according to reports from the UN Drug Control Programme.
On the question of psychosis, the advisory council was clear. Cannabis use may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia and lead to a relapse in some patients. But on causation, it said: “The evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent.”
It added that more than three million people were estimated to have used cannabis in the previous year, but “very few will ever develop this distressing and disabling condition”.
Scientists led by Professor Murray, at the Institute of Psychiatry, have argued that cannabis smoking can trigger psychosis in vulnerable individuals. A key worry is that young people are starting to smoke the drug earlier, in their mid-teens, when their brains are more vulnerable.
But experts led by Professor David Nutt, a specialist in addiction psychiatry at the University of Bristol, said in The Lancet in March that a causal link had not been established. Even if it were, cannabis could account for at most 7 per cent of cases of schizophrenia, he said.
One difficulty is distinguishing an association from a cause. Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of Sane, the mental health charity, was quoted as saying evidence of the damaging effects of cannabis was mounting, with psychiatrists claiming “80 per cent of patients have been using cannabis”. Cannabis use is widespread among mental patients, but their attempt to self-medicate tends to be a symptom of their suffering, not the cause.”
=======================
Just to summarise, in bullet points, from the above article:
- Current strains of cannabis are 2 or 3 times stronger old-style strains, not 25 or 30 times, as is often reported
- These more potent strains have always been available
- “The evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent” – not 40% as is being reported, quoting the recent Lancet study of questionable merit
- Experts led by Professor David Nutt, a specialist in addiction psychiatry at the University of Bristol, said in The Lancet in March that a causal link between cannabis and psychosis had not been established.
- Cannabis use is widespread among mental patients, but their attempt to self-medicate tends to be a symptom of their suffering, not the cause.
As you can see, the reality is nothing like the representation. If you seek the truth, you will find it. My goal, as always, is to bring you the truth!
I’ve been trying to put something together to post here about the ramping up of the false cannabis hysteria in the last week or so, but the whole goddamn thing has me so fucking fucked off, that I’ve been struggling with putting my thoughts into a sensible and rational form.
Basically, my anger and rage at the lies, misinformation and questionable science has knocked me off balance. I aim to redress that in the next day or in a series of posts I’m already preparing.
I want to get this one right. There’s too much at stake regarding the status and view of weed in UK society and someone has to be the voice of reason.
That someone is going to be me.
Because of my long relationship with cannabis, specifically “skunk” as the media likes to dub any decent, well-grown strain; I am uniquely qualified to comment on this subject.
And that’s the thing, in all of this “debate”, there has been one side of the argument missing; one voice not heard and that’s the views of someone who smokes and enjoys cannabis, regularly and responsibly.
Meet the hippy. That’s me. I’ve smoked cannabis daily for 26 years, around 25 of them, “skunk”. It’s always been available, if you knew where to look.
As well as being a habitual and unapologetic smoker of cannabis for over 2 decades, you’d also find me a mature, charming, intelligent, respectable, useful, gainfully employed, tax-paying member of society. I’m also clever, smart and fun to know. You’ll have to take my word for it.
I’m probably no different from the majority of cannabis smokers. We’re your neighbours, your co-workers, your friends, relatives; we’re a little bit of everybody!
We’re not demons, we’re not monsters, we’re actually a fairly chilled out, relaxed bunch of people, who would prefer to spend an evening reclining on the sofa, watching a good film or reading a good book or lost in deep conversation.
We’re not the sort you’ll find in a city centre at midnight, pissing in alleyways and picking street fights with the old bill.
The problem, with those of us who are both productive members of society and cannabis users is we can’t thrust our hands in the air and declare our admiration of weed, because of its current legal status.
We are all forced to remain underground and in the shadows, for to come out publicly as a dope smoker, would be to invite all manner of criticism and scorn which would threaten your standing in society, personally and professionally.
And that’s just plain wrong.
For me, the situation is different.
Not only am I uniquely qualified to comment on the subject, because of my long association with cannabis, but also because of my nom de plume as the northlondonhippy and this website. I have a forum to express my views as well as share the truth with you all, without fear of retribution. I’ve been doing it already, for a few years now.
That’s why I am putting myself forward as the voice of reason, sanity and experience on all things cannabis related. And I’m not limiting myself to only this website, but I would like to offer my services as a self-proclaimed expert on the subject to other media outlets as well.
That’s right, you clever young researchers who manage to find me, I am available for interview on any cannabis related matter and this offer is open to newspapers, magazines and radio programmes only. I won’t appear on television, so sorry guys, because I will not be identified as anything other than the northlondonhippy.
I’d also be happy to provide comment pieces for newspapers, if you would like to commission something, please feel free to contact me.
But if it is an interview you’re after, here are my simple conditions:
1) My real name and any other identifying facts about me shall remain secret. Your discretion is essential
2) You are free to mention and refer to my website, actually I would encourage that.
3) You can ask me anything you like about cannabis in general and my long-time personal experience with it as well. I will answer some personal questions, but others I will not. And it will be down to my discretion.
4) I’m not looking for payment. My reward will come from telling the truth and correcting the lies, falsehoods and scientific misinformation passed off as proven fact.
5) While short notice requests for interviews may be possible, some notice will be required. I do have a life outside of this blog and weed…well, sort of.
6) Initial contact via email first is recommended and encouraged.
7) For any live media outlets, ie radio, pre-interviews are fine and I promise not to swear or say anything slanderous. I won’t however, get into shouting matches with the irate and ill-informed. I will only participate in civilised, rational debates on the subject.
And here’s a bit of background on me, which you may quote from at will:
“The northlondonhippy is the biggest internet celebrity that you’ve never heard of, until now. He’s media professional by trade and has been blogging under this name for over 3 years.
His blog, www.northlondonhippy.com covers all aspects of his life, but concentrates on the hippy’s long-time love affair with cannabis. The hippy is part philosopher, part media critic and a keen observer of society.
As the debate over cannabis heats up, the hippy has decided to put himself forward as the voice of respectable, decent people who happen to smoke cannabis and don’t believe they deserve to be criminalised for it.”
For more information about me; and my personal views, please feel free to dig deeper into this site. It’s all there, if you look hard enough.
I think I might put out an actual, old-style press release, making this offer and I will target the following media outlets:
- The Guardian newspaper
- The Observer newspaper
- The Independent newspaper
- The Independent on Sunday
- The Times newspaper
- The Sunday Times newspaper
- LBC Talk Radio
- BBC Radio FiveLive
I think that’s a reasonable start. I’m serious, I’ll be sending out a short press release to them all, offering my services and credentials. I want to represent you, my fellow cannabis-smokers. Though we must exist in the shadows, we don’t need to have our views go unnoticed and unheard any more.
If you would like to add your voice to my campaign, please feel free to email me. I’ll be very happy to post your views, here on my site.
And my offer to all of these media outlets is genuine and sincere. If you strive to provide balance, then both sides of the argument deserve to be heard. I’m making it that much easier for you to accomplish this goal.
It’s always interesting to see what words people stick into Google and other search engines, which lead them to my humble, little website.
I receive a wide variety of statistics via my website hosts, but I always like checking out the search-terms section. It’s always good for a laugh.
This is the current list, for the month of July, to date, counting up from number ten:
10) “north london hippie” – my name, spelled wrong, with spaces. I’m glad it still leads to my site and I’m glad people search for me, even with the mistakes!
9) “billi bhatti” – him off Big Brother, evicted a couple of weeks ago. As you will see, BB names are popular on this list.
8) “purple ohms experiences” – a couple of years ago, I had a bad time on these pills. I took too many, I had an unpleasant experience. They’re legal highs and I think they are still available, now in non-BZP form.
7) “northlondonhippy” – now that’s more like it, spelled correctly, without spaces. I feature twice in my own top ten, which means my brand awareness is high and getting higher. Just like me, I’m getting higher too, right now…!
6) “RooR Pocket Friend” – a fine pipe from my friends at RooR. I’ve written about mine a few times. Usually, there are several RooR-related search terms in the top ten, but when I write about Big Brother, that tends to overtake it. Go figure!
5) “charley uchea tits” – Thus begins the breast obsession at the top of the list, nearly all BB related.
4) “victoria beckham topless” – see, more tits. As if I would post pictures of that beanpole with fake boobs!
3) “chanelle hayes masturbation” – BB related, but not so breast-centric. Does anyone know if these pictures do exist? I wouldn’t post them, but I might like to see them myself, purely for research purposes.
2) “shabnam paryani topless” – I don’t really get this one, especially as it is so high up on the list. Do people really want to see her topless? I don’t even want to see her clothed! She’s scary!! People have very weird tastes and interests, but this is the internet, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
1) “expanding theory” – A while ago, I wrote up a silly little theory about what I thought the effect of the universe constantly expanding would have on us. I was very high at the time and it was total bollocks.
Google doesn’t seem to think so, for if you put “expanding theory” into the world’s largest and smartest search engine, this is what you get as your top hit: CLICK HERE
Go on, check it out. My site is the top hit! Read it!
Do you really think I am an expert on the subject? Should I win a Nobel Prize for innovation in science?
I should very much think not!
I don’t know if you found that interesting, but as always, I am interested in what you have to say. I’d like to take an informal survey:
Please email me with how you found my site. Did you stumble upon me via a search engine? Do you remember what you were searching for? Maybe you saw a link to my site? Where?
However you found me, I’d like to know. Please email me at thehippy@northlondonhippy.com – I won’t spam you or give/sell your address to anyone. I don’t even keep a mailing list. I’m just nosy.
Who’s a lazy hippy?
Me?
Sort of!
I know it appears that way, what with me not posting anything in 10 long days. I guess it’s kind of true.
But look, just below this post, is my rather lengthy review of my new MacBook and a bit more on the role Apple plays in my life. I said I would do it, promised even and there it is!
I’ve been working on the hippy FAQ as well. It’s not ready just yet, but when it is, I’ll have it added to the site.
And I haven’t forgotten about my promise to produce a new “best of the hippy” list of posts. That will come, so all you new hippyfans can learn quickly why I am a “messiah for a new millennium” and the “biggest internet celebrity you’ve never heard of”.
I really am a “messiah for a new millennium”, you know and I can prove it. Look up at the top of your browser!
But by far, the coolest thing I’ve done in the last week is sort out the brand new, coming soon, “RooR Custom 5.0 – northlondonhippy deluxe” bong!
Yes, I’ve been threatening to do it for a long time, but now I’ve actually gone and done it! I’ve designed my very own RooR bong and it will carry my name!
I’ve finally got my legacy!
As the designer, I’m getting the very first one, but you, my beloved hippyfans will be able to buy my bong too!
The “Custom RooR – northlondonhippy deluxe” will be for sale exclusively via my partners in the venture, www.everyonedoesit.com or EDIT as they are known. The banner adverts on this page will all lead you to EDIT as well. They are my favourite wesbite and stock a wide variety of products that cool people like you and me dig!
EDIT already have one of the biggest and best selections RooR products on the planet, they also have one of the biggest and best cannabis seed banks in Europe. Legal highs – they’ve got ‘em, rolling papers? More than you’ve ever seen! Pipes, stash boxes, you name it. Have a look; I can’t recommend them enough! And I shop with them a lot, myself!
I’ve had some very high-level negotiations to pull off this hippy-bong-coup. Thanks to Ben at EDIT and Neal, the MD, we managed to visit the normally, high-security and secretive RooR factory in Germany to sort out the particulars of this major business deal.
It was awfully good of EDIT to let us use their corporate jet, because I hate flying commercial!
The RooR guys were cool, they really know their glass, but as the best manufacturers of glass bongs and pipes in the world, the better do!
The design team were very demanding and wanted me to justify each and every choice I made. In the end, they all saw the elegance, sophistication and beauty of the “northlondonhippy deluxe” and they signed off on the sketches.
I’m not going to tell you anything about the actual design of the bong, not now anyway. Though you might have worked out already that it’s going to be 5.0mm thick. The rest will be revealed when I post the first pictures of the bong, the same time it goes up for sale on EDIT.
Start saving your pennies, kids! The “northlondonhippy deluxe” will be the best bong in the world! As soon as you see it, you’re going to want to buy one for your own bad selves!
I’ve now had my brand new, shiny, lickable, 2.16 Core2Duo, 2 gig, black MacBook for 2 weeks and man, oh man do I dig it!
What’s not to love? Apple have outdone themselves in the design and execution of this very high-end consumer laptop. I’ll say it right now, for those of you considering a laptop purchase in the near future…buy a MacBook and you won’t go wrong!
I’ll also state, for the record, that I am a big fan of Apple products. I owned an Apple computer back in the mid 80s (an Apple //c for you true geeks out there) and returned to the Apple family in 2005, with the purchase of a 20” G5 iMac. It was the smartest and coolest purchase I ever made.
I saw how amazing Mac’s operating system, OS X worked, how stable, easy to use and intuitive it all was, I was sold.
Once I put my entire music collection into iTunes, I knew I was onto something. When I synched my contacts with Address Book and my diary with Calendar, all paired with my Bluetooth phone, in less time than it takes to brew a cup of tea, I knew my life changed.
Apple makes the things you actually want to do with a computer, easier. Like set up the system. Edit video. Store and organise your music, or photos. It all just works, right out of the box.
For example, take my new MacBook. Guess how long it took to go from the time I signed for delivery to the point where I was online, looking at the Google homepage on the gorgeous 13.3 inch LCD screen?
6 minutes and that included unboxing it slowly and carefully. OS X walked me through the set-up process, set by step, including joining my existing wireless network with straightforward ease.
If computers intimidate you, or you’re tired or wrestling with bullshit Windows preference screens and Bios settings, come over to the light! You’ll never see that dreaded “blue screen of death” again.
My shiny new MacBook replaces an iBook that I sold a few months back.
The iBook I had, the 2nd to the last revision sold, was a good, solid little laptop and had the MacBooks not come along, I would still own it. It was a very portable size, reliable, and easy on the eye, but the MacBook just offers more.
A faster processor, a better brighter screen, built-in iSight, magnetic latch, MagSafe power adaptor, thinner, lighter and it came in black – I had to have one!
The design is very sleek and minimal, and typical for Apple. I paid the extra for black, which many of you will think is silly. You can get a similarly spec’d white one for around 70 or 80 quid less.
What can I say? I like the black better, so I spent the extra money. Racing stripes don’t make your car go any faster, yet people pay extra to have them put on. Is this any different?
Using the MacBook is a dream. It is very fast and responsive and I especially like the “multi-touch” trackpad that can sense when you are using 2 fingers or one.
Tap the trackpad with 2 fingers and you produce a right click, which is a revelation for me. I use context menus quite a bit and being able to reproduce a right click with one hand on a laptop is a very good thing. Drag 2 fingers on the trackpad and the display scrolls, up, down or side-to-side if the applications allows. Very cool.
I wasn’t sure how I would like the glossy display, but after using it for 2 weeks, I think it is great. I was concerned about glare and seeing my face smugly reflected back at me, but this is not the case. The screen is so bright; even with the brightness reduced to conserve battery power, that it remains stunning and sharp.
I downloaded some trailers from the Apple site, in glorious 720p Quicktime HD goodness and they played back without a stutter and looked positively amazing!
I haven’t done much with the built-in camera, but I’m not much of an internet chatter or webcammer, so this is not surprising. When I was setting up my user account on the MacBook, PhotoBooth came up and I was offered the chance to take a photo, right then and there, to use as my login and system picture. A cool feature, that shows you right out the box, how user-friendly this computer is.
The magnetic latch clamps shut with a satisfying, firm thud and the MagSafe power adaptor literally leaps from your fingers into the socket on the MacBook when you bring it very close.
Battery life seems decent, I’ve had the Bluetooth turned off, but the wi-fi on most of the time and I’m getting nearly 5 hours.
Rip a CD, or play a feature length film from the hard drive and you can see the battery drain faster. I’m guessing you could probably watch 2 feature films back to back on a full charge, but if you’re concerned about using it on a long flight, they do sell a MagSafe airline power adaptor as an optional accessory.
As far as everything else goes, what can I say? It’s a Mac, it’s as stable and solid as my iMac and that goes for the hardware and software.
I’ve been on OS X for coming up on 3 years and I have never had a system crash. I’ve had applications crash, sure, but the actual operating system doesn’t go down with it. I don’t know anyone with a Windows computer who can say the same thing.
I ran Windows at home for years and I still use it where I work. I was never a fan, but now that I am a Mac-head I positively despise it! I restart my PC at work repeatedly, because it’s always crashing or freezing. When something goes wrong, the IT guys (who seem to travel in pairs these days), spend a lot of time scratching their heads and going off to thing about what the problem is, rather than actually fixing it.
Look, if you like Windows, and you think its great, and you are happy with it, fantastic and well done you! But if you’re like me and you think it is bloated, messy and about as stable as the SS Poseidon on New Year’s Eve, then I implore you to investigate Apple computers.
Have you ever met anyone who enthuses over his or her Windows PC? Or Windows? Find someone else who has a Mac and ask them if they like it. Prepare to have them go on and on, in glowing terms just as I have.
There’s a reason why people are enthusiastic about Apple. The toys they sell live up to the hype. Have you got an iPod? I bet lots of you do. Do you love it? I bet you do. Well, Apple computers are even better than their iPods!
Got an iPhone? Want one? I think we all fall into one of those two categories, with the second one currently being the larger of the two. Wouldn’t a matching Apple computer be nice?
You have no reason to fear Apple; Steve Jobs is your friend. He makes stuff to make your life easier; to make your life better.
Bill Gates makes stuff to complicate your life and frustrate you; at home and at work. He is very successful at this, that’s why he is the richest man in the world. You don’t have to buy what he sells; yet you do, anyway.
Apple computers are not more expensive, when you factor in all the software you get. I have read countless comparison studies done on comparably spec’d systems, with similar software packages and the Windows version always costs more. By the time you add all the extra crap you need to bring a Windows PC up to the level of a Mac, you’ve ended up spending a lot more money.
Let me describe my current home set-up:
- My 20” iMac, my main system, a desktop. I use it for surfing and writing, some downloading and I dock my iPod with this system, so it has my mobile music library on it. I also use it for my serious heavy lifting, like video editing on Final Cut Express and recording music on Logic Express. The G5 processor is showing it’s age though, especially compared to the MacBook and even my MacMini, so if the rumours are true about a major overhaul to the iMac line…I could be replacing it sometime soon.
- My MacMini – connected to a 32” Sony LCD and my stereo, it also streams music to two Airport Expresses. Used for all things media, it has my complete music library (my tunes, plus Mrs. Hippy’s), it also handles all film and tv downloads, streaming video content and video playback. This system gets used a lot, I like my media
- My shiny new MacBook – surfing on the sofa while watching TV and all of my mobile computing needs. I write on-the-go and it will be going to work with me. Now if I can access the company wi-fi network, my work-porn needs are solved!
- Airport Extreme – brand new, purchased with the MacBook. Only set it up a couple of days ago and I have to say, the set-up was a bit Un-Apple. I’ll do a separate post on this, but in the end, it’s now working flawlessly.
- Airport Express number 1 – used to be my wi-fi hub, it is now in my bedroom, connected to a set of speakers, which receives music from iTunes via a wi-fi connection and is rebroadcasting my wi-fi network upstairs. I think that’s called WDS.
- Airport Express number 2 – Is in my kitchen, connected to a 2nd set of speakers. All this one does is receive music.
- My 60gb black video iPod – holds my entire music collection and a few videos. I can’t say I have used the video very much, but as a music player, it sees loads of use. I have a dock in the car that is an FM transmitter, which lets me play it thru the stereo. It’s a Macally FM Cup and it works very well, even in central London.
I’ve edited films, turned them into DVDs, recorded songs with real musical instruments and MIDI, I’ve written 2 novels and blogged my motherfucking socks off, all on Apple computers.
I can play the same music, at the same time, throughout my entire house. It makes blitzing the place with the Hoover a lot more pleasant!
I’ve been recommending Apple systems to all my friends for a little while now and every single one of them is grateful.
If you take my advice too and end up all grateful, a little gift wouldn’t go amiss. This hippy likes presents, so please send me something cool and preferably expensive! Just post it off to “the hippy” in north London and let the postman do the rest. I’m famous, just like Santa Claus, I’m sure the package will reach me just fine!
