Submission to the Home Affairs Committee
A submission for the upcoming enquiry into drugs by the Home Affairs Committee.
Dear Sir / Madam,
I would like to submit evidence to show that the current laws on cannabis are illegal (1), and anti-competitive (2).
At the end of this submission, I wish to further address the Criminal Issue. (3).
The Endo-Cannabinoid System (ECS) – We all have one; humans, dogs, cats, and every animal with a backbone.
It is accepted by science and the medical community that the ECS is essential for helping to regulate core bodily functions such as: mood, memory, appetite and the sleep/wake cycle. It's recognised that all (Phyto) cannabinoids from cannabis have a beneficial effect in some capacity, even THC, which we're often told has the potential to trigger psychosis despite the data on that topic never being compared to that for legal drugs such as nicotine, alcohol and caffeine.
Cannabis is accepted to be the best source of phyto-cannabinoids on the planet, so it makes sense that there should be easy access to this plant, just as we have access to Vitamin C to top up our Endocrine System. Yet cannabis as a whole is illegal, and the CBD/Hemp food supplemental industry is being squeezed to the point that the only true access to phyto-cannabinoid rich products will be governed by Pharmaceutical requirement.
The HRA 1998 Article 2 gives everyone the right to life, if that is the case, that should extend to the right to top up one's ECS by any means they feel fit, be it through recreational, supplemental, or medicinal cannabis products.
Despite this, a UN ruling in 2007 that continued drug prohibition in itself is a breach of human rights, and the fact that there has been an over 50% approval rating in the UK for the liberalisation (legalisation or decriminalisation) of cannabis laws since 2019, it remains illegal in the UK except if it has been prescribed for medicinal use.
The reason for cannabis prohibition, as defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica, is founded in early 1900's racism that originated in the United States. This was transferred to a global scene with the 1961 1st UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs by Harry Anslinger, who is famous for saying (amongst other things) “Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind. Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers."
Racism is abhorrent, yet even to this day it's been shown through FOI's that you're more than likely to be arrest for cannabis if you are of African origin on the basis of the 'smell of cannabis'. It's also been shown that the same people are more than likely to go to jail for their first drugs offence than their white counterparts. The Human Rights Act (HRA 1998) Article 14 prohibits discrimination of any kind, including race.
It's not just discrimination of non-white people though, all consumers as a whole are effectively being Victimised in line with the EqA 2010 section 27.
Many politicians, serving police, and people in authority have consumed drugs and either been caught doing so, or admitted to it. Strangely very few of them get arrested, charged, or even lose their jobs. It wasn't very long ago that nearly all of the 2019 Conservative party leadership election candidates admitted to using drugs at some point, the eventual winner Boris Johnson himself admitting to historic cannabis use. I ask this enquiry one simple question: how many other people would get the job if they admitted drug use past or present to a perspective employer at the interview stage?
This highlights the big problem with cannabis – It's unjustly shackled, and people will be arrested and/or jailed simply for the possession of it. However, if you happen to be part of the establishment, it does not seem to hamper your career prospects, get you fired, or land you in jail... for the best part, anyway.
I would respectfully request that on this basis, this enquiry: recognise the historic and current racism that surrounds cannabis (HRA 1998 Art 14), recognise the implications of the ECS, recognise the Right To Life (HRA 1998 Art 2), and recognise that as long as those who are in power willingly admit to drug use in general or do not action appropriate disciplinary action on those who are caught, continued prohibition is not just a breach of Human Rights, but also in fact Victimisation (EqA 2010 Sect 27) by the establishment against the UK public.
I would like to draw further attention to that of Victimisation, which if anything lies at the feet of the Home Office (HO). What I am about to highlight here is the Anti-Competitive nature of cannabis prohibition, everything that surrounds prohibition actually benefits the UK based GW Pharmaceuticals (GW).
In 2018, ex-PM and former Home Secretary Theresa May's husband Phillip was reportedly in line for a windfall due to the legalisation of medicinal cannabis as a result of his links to GW, a company she herself would have know about due to her time at the Home Office.
At about the same time, Victoria Atkins, who was the Drugs Minister appointed by Theresa May in 2017, had to recuse herself from questions on cannabis due to her husband's interests. Paul Kenward became the MD of British Sugar in 2016 due to him being instrumental in applying for the company to grow hemp in greenhouses in 2015, specifically to supply GW.
These two politicians should have answered to their employers, the British Public. They both had authority over drugs, both were indicated through the press as having conflicts, and both failed to answer to the scrutiny in line with the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
During that time and right to the present day, thousands of people are being arrested for cannabis possession, which in itself leads to the biggest level of Government hypocrisy that has been witnessed in recent times.
GW, possibly through political means, have the biggest say when it comes to cannabis. You can't smoke 'Skunk', but they can grow it as well as genetic variables under license from the HO, who themselves are constantly telling the people how bad 'Skunk' is.
'Skunk' by the way, is a strain from the 90's that has no where near the impact and strength that politicians and the press say it does. I would like to respectfully point out that
those people who continue to label high strength cannabis 'as such' are in fact making themselves look foolish in the eyes of the British public, and that it also reflects that those in power are massively out of touch with the level of knowledge that same public has.
The HO are also helping them gain a controlling influence on the hemp/CBD food supplement industry as well, all the information to that is in this link, which is an Industry Specific article that I wrote on the matter.
This link is a further article I wish to submit, which focuses in Theresa May and Victoria Atkins specifically.
3. The Criminal Issue
Forgive me for talking a little bit more personable from this point.
I have dealt cannabis to those who wanted to smoke it, as well as those who needed it for medical conditions. I have grown it for exactly the same reasons, and I paid for everything, including the electricity.
Am I a criminal? In the eyes of UK laws, yes I am. Am I a bad person for that, no.
I can sell someone a pack of cigarettes, a 4 pack of beer, or a jar of coffee. All of them have the potential of causing more harm in some capacity, and their rates for causing psychosis far outstrip what the government suggests that cannabis does, yet all of those substances are legal, and kill thousands of people a year.
There is however a criminal element that exists and needs to be talked about, slavery!
Yes there are people who run County Lines, there are people who acquire warehouses for extremely large grows, and there are people who even add impurities such as Spice (synthetic drug, incorrectly labelled as cannabis) to increase the weight and make more money from what is effectively a low value drug. All of these criminal elements could be eradicated with the stroke of a pen, but it's already known that slavery still exists in the UK, and the government have allowed that to continue despite Article 4 of the HRA 1998.
That in itself ranks higher that the hypocrisies of May and Atkins, so I implore you to consider at the very least that cannabis be considered a priority over the unspecified drugs that are also under considered in some degree for decriminalisation.
The Hemp Hound Agency.