Global Cannabis Commission

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Global Cannabis Commission Acknowledgements We thank each of the following, who provided help or advice on specific points: Laurence Helfer, Les Iversen, Martin Jelsma, Shekhar Saxena, and Ambros Uchtenhagen. Particular thanks are due to Louisa Degenhardt for graciously allowing us to draw on her collaborative work with Wayne Hall. Wim Scholten and Bob Keizer provided useful advice at a Beckley Foundation meeting on the project. We also thank each of the following, who provided research or information assistance: Jude Gittins, Jonny Hazell, and Katherine Rudzinski; and Sarah Yeates for assistance in locating the literature on the health effects of cannabis and in formatting the chapter on the health effects of cannabis. Thanks also to Maggie Halls for her assistance in locating reference material for chapters on the range of reforms and their effects. The authors would like to give special thanks and appreciation to Amanda Feilding, the founder and director of the Beckley Foundation and our convenor. The report on which this book is based was Amanda’s idea in the first place, and she has been instrumental in bringing it into being, patient and helpful with suggestions, and gracious and hospitable throughout the process. i Table of Contents 4 FOREWORD 6 PREFACE 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PART I: CANNABIS POLICY: MOVING BEYOND STALEMATE 11 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 24 CHAPTER 2. THE HEALTH AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CANNABIS USE 61 ANNEX : HEALTH ADVICE ON CANNABIS USE 63 CHAPTER 3. THE CANNABIS PROHIBITION REGIME: PATTERNS OF USE, MARKETS AND POLICIES 95 CHAPTER 4. THE RANGE OF REFORMS WITHIN THE SYSTEM: SOFTENING THE PROHIBITION 130 CHAPTER 5. THE IMPACTS OF CANNABIS POLICY REFORMS WITHIN THE CURRENT DRUG CONTROL REGIME 156 CHAPTER 6. BEYOND THE CURRENT DRUG CONVENTIONS 174 CHAPTER 7. PATHS FORWARD FROM THE IMPASSE 181 PART II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 188 ANNEX: RESEARCH PRIORITIES 190 PART III: DRAFT FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CANNABIS CONTROL 229 REFERENCES 281 ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND THE BECKLEY FOUNDATION ii Preface Cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug and therefore the mainstay of the 'War on Drugs’. It is used by an estimated 4% of the global adult population, i.e. 166 million people out of an estimated population of 200 million illegal drug users’1. It therefore constitutes roughly 80% of the illegal drug market. However, cannabis has only ever held a relatively marginal position in international drug policy discussions. In response to its peripheral role in the global debate, I decided to convene a team of the world's leading drug policy analysts to prepare an overview of the latest scientific evidence surrounding cannabis and the policies controlling its use. The report would both bring cannabis to the attention of policy-makers and also provide them with the relevant facts to better inform their future decisions, particularly in the context of the United Nations Strategic Drug Policy Review of 2009, and thereafter. The historical context of the United Nations’ policy is critical here. In 1998, the international community agreed a 10-year programme of activity for the control of illegal drug use and markets. These agreements were made at a United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) held in New York in June of that year, and a commitment was made to reassess the situation at the end of the 10-year period. The nature of this programme was epitomised by the slogan ‘A drug free world - we can do it!’. However, the reality is that since 1998 drugs have in general become cheaper and more readily available than ever before. At the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March 2007, it was agreed a high-level political meeting would be held in the spring of 2009 to review progress and to agree the way forward. We hope that this volume will help lead the way towards a more rational, effective and just approach to the control of cannabis. Cannabis is, however, a complicated issue, with many seemingly contradictory facets. On the one hand, it has a history of spiritual and medicinal use that dates back millennia; this, together with the explosion in its use during the latter half of the twentieth century, indicates the many subjective benefits that users attribute to it. Moreover, it is one of the least toxic substances used recreationally, where the risk of overdose is negligible. On the other hand, recent years have seen growing concern about an association between cannabis use and a variety of possible harms, particularly mental health disorders. Only through extensive and rigorous research can we hope to clarify the contradictions between the perceived benefits of cannabis and the dangers it presents. 1 The figures from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) indicate that in 2006-7 some 166 million people aged 15 or above, or 3.9 per cent of this age group, used cannabis regularly. Just 1 per cent of the world population uses other illegal drugs. iii Some of the many questions on which we lack reliable evidence include: Why do people choose to use cannabis? What are the psychological and therapeutic needs it fulfils? What are the processes it might enhance? Why and when is cannabis harmful? Can this be understood in terms of differences in individual genetic and personality types, or in the type of cannabis consumed, or in the pattern of its consumption? By answering these and other questions we might minimise the harms caused by cannabis use and help to prevent its misuse, as well as better understanding the benefits many users reportedly derive from it, both in alleviating sickness and promoting well-being. When considering harms, it is also important to include the adverse effects of a criminal justice approach to cannabis control. This is particularly pertinent given the evidence that cannabis control policies, whether draconian or liberal, appear to have little or no impact on the prevalence or intensity of its consumption. Indeed, at the onset of international cannabis prohibition, use of the drug was confined to a scattering of countries and cultures, but since then it has spread around the world and is now widely used in most developed countries, to the extent that it has become a rite of passage for a majority of young people. In the developed world, it is all too easy to overlook the unintended consequences of the War on Drugs, including the extensive violations of human rights, since in these countries the violations are most predominantly felt by drug-users themselves, particularly where discriminatory enforcement leads to significantly higher levels of arrests among the disadvantaged and minority groups. However, in producer/transit countries, such as in Latin America, the suffering caused by this war is vastly more widespread, affecting not only farmers but also whole populations by the destabilisation of political and social systems through corruption, violence, and institutional collapse. While attention to these systemic effects has primarily been focused on other drugs, the war on cannabis also plays a significant role. However, despite cannabis being responsible for the great majority of arrests for illicit drug-use – in the US alone approximately 750,000 arrests per annum – international drug policy discussions have tended to ignore cannabis, focusing instead on those substances that cause the most harms: opioids, cocaine and amphetamines. As discussed in this volume, although cannabis has always been marginal to the main interests of the international drug control system, the upholders of the system have been extremely reluctant to consider reforms which would change its status within, or remove it from, that system. Although this Report is specifically targeted at reviewing cannabis laws, it is worth noting that any change to the scheduling of cannabis under the international drug control system could lead to the questioning of the whole War on Drugs approach. Without cannabis within the system’s remit, the number of illegal drug-users in the world would total somewhere in the region of 40 million people – arguably too small a number to justify the vast costs – in money, human suffering and political corruption – of the current efforts to enforce the ideals behind this unwinnable war. With a much narrower target the War on Drugs might turn instead into a more sensible campaign to iv relieve the problems caused by the dependence of a small number of users on more addictive and dangerous drugs. The present volume reviews the issues which need to be considered by policy-makers in developing more effective cannabis policies that minimise the harms associated with its use and control. We hope that this Report will prove useful in policy discussions concerning cannabis, not only in the context of the 2009 international review, but also as a guide for governments seeking to reform their cannabis policies thereafter, and that it will further promote a wider discussion of these important issues amongst the general public. Amanda Feilding Director of the Beckley Foundation v i ii Chapter 1. Introduction MARIJUANA IS THE most widely used illegal drug in the world. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that, across all nations, 160 million people used cannabis in the course of 2005, 4% of the global adult populations - far more than the number that used any other illicit drug, though far less than the number that consumed alcohol or tobacco. The number of cannabis users in 2005 was 10% higher than estimated global use in the mid 1990s (UNODC, 2007). The numbers are particularly striking because fifty years ago cannabis was a very uncommon drug, with pockets of traditional use in India, Jamaica and a few other developing nations and use otherwise largely confined to fringe bohemian groups in a few rich countries.
Recommended publications
  • Texto Completo Libro (Pdf)
    LAS SENDAS DE LA REGULACIÓN DEL CANNABIS EN ESPAÑA Consejo editorial María Eugenia Aubet - Manuel Cruz Rodríguez - Josep M. Delgado Ribas - Oscar Guasch Andreu - Antonio Izquierdo Escribano - Raquel Osborne - R. Lucas Platero - Oriol Romaní Alfonso - Amelia Sáiz López - Verena Stolcke - Olga Viñuales Sarasa Serie General Universitaria - 191 REGULACIÓN RESPONSABLE (ed.) LAS SENDAS DE LA REGULACIÓN DEL CANNABIS EN ESPAÑA Editor académico: David Pere Martínez Oró edicions bellaterra Diseño de la colección: Joaquín Monclús © Sus autores, 2017 © Regulación responsable, 2017 © David Pere Martínez Oró, 2017 © Edicions Bellaterra, S.L., 2017 Navas de Tolosa, 289 bis. 08026 Barcelona www.ed-bellaterra.com Quedan prohibidos, dentro de los límites establecidos en la ley y bajo los apercibimientos legalmente previstos, la reproducción total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, ya sea electrónico o mecánico, el tratamiento informático, el alquiler o cualquier otra forma de cesión de la obra sin la autorización previa y por escrito de los titulares del copyright. Diríjase a CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos, http://www.cedro.org) si necesita fotocopiar o escanear algún fragmento de esta obra. Impreso en España Printed in Spain ISBN: 978-84-7290-809-3 Depósito Legal: B. 6.579-2017 Impreso por Prodigitalk. Martorell (Barcelona) Índice Autores, 15 Presentación, 25 A modo de prólogo. Las sendas de la regulación del cannabis en Es- paña, 27 BLOQUE I Los consumos de cannabis en clave sociocultural 1. Cannabis en España. Continuidades y puntos de inflexión históri- cos, 33 Desde la Antigüedad a la Edad Moderna, 33 • Exotismo, literatura y terapéutica durante el siglo XIX y primer tercio del XX, 35 • El Protec- torado de la Zona de Marruecos y la guerra civil, 37 • Los grifotas del franquismo, 38 • Transición y consolidación democrática, 40 • Refe- rencias bibliográficas, 43 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Disclosure Statement Initial Public Offering of Ordinary Shares in Rua Bioscience Limited
    Product Disclosure Statement Initial Public Offering of ordinary shares in Rua Bioscience Limited This document gives you important information about this investment to help you 25th September 2020 decide whether you want to invest. There is other useful information about this offer on LEAD MANAGER CO-MANAGER disclose-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/. Rua Bioscience Limited has prepared this document in accordance with the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. You can also seek advice from a financial adviser to help you to make an investment decision. 2 RUA Bioscience Limited • Key information summary Key information summary 1.1 Rua has secured a sales agreement with leading German wholesale importer and distributor Nimbus Health GmbH What is this? (Nimbus), and has developed two commercial-scale facilities: a controlled cultivation facility in Ruatorea and an extraction This is an offer of ordinary shares (Offer Shares) in Rua and manufacturing facility in Gisborne. By prioritising Bioscience Limited (Rua or the Company). Ordinary shares in wholesale exports in the short term, Rua intends to generate Rua give you a stake in the ownership of Rua. You may receive revenue to support its on-going investment into a range of long a return if dividends are paid or Rua increases in value and you term value opportunities, including genetics research, product are able to sell your Shares at a higher price than you paid development, clinical trials and brand development. for them. Rua holds a Medicinal Cannabis Licence from New Zealand’s If Rua runs into financial difficulties and is wound up, you will Medicinal Cannabis Agency, permitting it to operate in be paid only after all creditors have been paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018 -2019
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018 -2019 the beckley foundation annual report CONTENTS ABOUT THE FOUNDATION UPCOMING RESEARCH 1 1 3 MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS 2 14 UN SUSTAINABILITY GOALS DRUG POLICY REFORM 3-4 15-18 ADVISORY BOARD ACCESS 5-6 19 SCIENCE EVENTS & MEDIA BECKLEY/BRAZIL 7-8 20-22 BECKLEY/IMPERIAL FUNDING 9-10 22 BECKLEY/MAASTRICHT COLLABORATIONS 11-12 23 BECKLEY/ICEERS THANK YOU 12 24 11 ABOUT THE BECKLEY FOUNDATION Mission Our aim is to harness the power of science in order to integrate psychoactive substances into society as safe & effective tools to treat a broad range of health conditions and to enhance wellbeing. Amanda Feilding Amanda Feilding has been studying the mechanisms underlying the effects of psychedelics since 1966. In 1998, she set up the Beckley Foundation in order to open up the doors of scientific research into the potential benefits of psychedelics, and to develop a scientific evidence base to help reform global drug policies, so that these compounds can be made available to patients in need. The Three Pillars of the Beckley Foundation Science Policy Access The Beckley Foundation’s The Policy Programme Access provides Scientific Programme, provides a rigorous, Amanda Feilding with led by Amanda Feilding, independent review a platform to deliver develops and conducts of current global drug on her goal to develop psychedelic research policies, and for over innovative solutions through an international 20 years has been that ensure psychedelic network of collaborative developing a scientific treatments are made partnerships with leading evidence-base on available for those in scientists and institutions which to build balanced need, in the years ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economic Perspective on the Legalisation Debate: the Dutch Case
    AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE LEGALISATION DEBATE: THE DUTCH CASE Martijn Adriaan Boermans* Introduction Understanding the consequences of drug legalisation versus prohibition is important for policy. Most recently this subject has gained much political attention not only globally, but specifically in the Netherlands.1 This study will provide a contribution to the legalisation debate based on a microeconomic analysis of the effects of illegal markets. The research question is how to design a coherent soft drugs policy framework that maximizes social welfare within the Netherlands that precludes most historical, sociological and political debates. In particular, attention is restricted to ‘soft drugs’ better known as cannabis derived products like hashish and marijuana.2 The focus is on the Dutch case, since traditionally the Netherlands has been a forerunner in terms of drug-related policies, as exemplified by coffeeshops. In a country with a population of 16 million about 1 million indicate to use soft drugs on a regular basis. Almost all consumers buy soft drugs in coffeeshops.3 Interestingly, there is no stereotypical Dutch soft drug consumer, since users are representative of the Dutch population, for example in terms of education levels. Prices vary between 150-250 euro per * M.A. Boermans, MPhil, is a PhD Candidate and works for the Innovation and Business Centre (InnBus) at the Hogeschool Utrecht where he also is Lecturer. His other works include economic papers on international trade. He holds a research master degree in Multidisciplinary Economics from the Universiteit Utrecht and obtained his undergraduate degree from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Corresponding email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis in New Zealand Perceptions of Use, Users and Policy
    Cannabis in New Zealand perceptions of use, users and policy Geoff Noller A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Christchurch Aotearoa, New Zealand November 5, 2008 ABSTRACT Introduction Despite humanity’s lengthy relationship with psychoactive substances, their consumption in contemporary societies is perceived as highly problematic. Cannabis, the most commonly imbibed illicit psychotropic, has come to embody these concerns. Medical and scientific research informs notions of use and user, with these being further constructed in the public realm by law, the media and policy against a backdrop of health deficits and other harms including risk taking, criminality and deviance. With many studies drawing on clinical populations, e.g. high intensity users or those in treatment, a pathologized view of the user predominates. Where general population studies incorporate user data, these typically concentrate on the epidemiology of use: frequency, intensity, duration, and symptoms of abuse and dependence. This, however, tells us little about the meaning of use for users or why use continues despite universal official disapprobation. A lack of studies incorporating user perspectives thus ensures the limited focus of much present research and a policy accent on supply reduction at the expense of harm minimisation and safe use education. Those choosing to continue use are stigmatised as deviant or dependant. This has the effect of further bolstering enforcement, a strategy showing little evidence of efficacy. The present study sought a comparison between this dominant discourse on cannabis use and the perspectives of users, with a range of exploratory hypotheses being identified. Method Eighty cannabis-using respondents participated in open-ended face-to-face interviews, of which seventy-six successfully completed a follow-up questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Mattersofsubstance
    Mattersof Substance. august 2015 Volume 26 Issue No.3 www.drugfoundation.org.nz Taking the pulse of Māori public health Restoring equality and addressing health outcomes for Ma¯ori comes with many challenges. CONTENts FEATURE Taking the STORY pulse of 18 Māori public health COVER: Health inequalities for Mäori remain, but much progress is being made getting the right sort of help COVER ABOUT STORY 06 28 A DRUG WORLD NEWS FEATURE: 02 THE CRUEL C 14 $ $ $ $ ? FEATURES Become 06 14 18 24 a member Taking the pulse of The cruel C The UNGASS A school’s Maori public health With hepatitis C rates 2016 primer core business The New Zealand Drug Foundation has Health inequalities for growing, is there any A comprehensive Focusing on a positive school been at the heart of major alcohol and Mäori remain, but much relief in sight? introduction to the environment means alcohol other drug policy debates for over 20 years. progress is being made UN’s special session on and other drugs aren’t such During that time, we have demonstrated getting the right sort the world drug problem a big deal at Ötaki College a strong commitment to advocating of help policies and practices based on the best evidence available. You can help us. A key strength of the Drug Foundation lies in its diverse membership REGULARS base. As a member of the Drug Foundation, you will receive information about major The Director’s Cut 01 alcohol and other drug policy challenges. You can also get involved in our work to 30 34 36 Events 01 find solutions to those challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoe Begin Ik Een
    HOW TO SET UP A CSC IN 4 STEPS Presentation by Joep Oomen, Encod SPAIN • Since 2005, approx. 200 clubs have been set up • Legal basis: cultivation for personal use is not prosecuted • Some clubs have thousands of members, consumption room, open daily • One Spanish village (Rasquera, Catalonia) is ready to produce for CSC’s, regional authorities are considering legal regulation for clubs • www.fac.cc BELGIUM • One CSC: Trekt Uw Plant, operating since 2010 • Legal basis: ministerial guideline allowing 1 plant per adult • TUP has 300 members, 2 regional sections • 14 growers, with a max. of 32 plants each • Every 2/3 months: harvest • Information on homegrowing, healthier ways of growing and consuming, lobby for cannabis regulation • www.trektuwplant.be FRANCE • Initiative to organise collectives who wish to work along the CSC guidelines since July 2012 • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • 150 initiatives around the country, first meeting to agree on common principles in december 2012 • Facebook: Cannabis Social Club Français GERMANY • Facebook page to promote the idea • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • In February 2012, a hearing on CSC’s took place in German parliament • Facebook: Pro Cannabis Social Club's für Deutschland UNITED KINGDOM • Website to promote the idea • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • Some 50 clubs exist on the website – unclear if they are active or not • www.cannabiscure.co.uk ITALY • Several initiatives to open the discussion • Legal basis: none –
    [Show full text]
  • CANNABIS Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate
    PRESS RELEASE CANNABIS Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate On Thursday, 2nd October 2008, the Beckley Foundation will launch its Global Cannabis Commission Report, an authoritative guide to the effects of cannabis, the policies that control its use, and recommendations for policy reform. Despite cannabis being the most widely used illegal drug, with more than 160 million users worldwide, and therefore being the mainstay of the War on Drugs, it has only held a relatively marginal position in international drug policy discussions. In recognition of this, Amanda Feilding, Director of the Beckley Foundation decided to convene a team of the world’s leading drug policy analysts to prepare an overview of the latest scientific evidence surrounding cannabis and the policies that control its use. The Beckley Foundation is a UN-accredited NGO and this Report has been prepared for the United Nations’ Strategic Drug Policy Review of 2009. The Report will provide policy-makers at national and international level with all the relevant facts to help them make better informed decisions. In reviewing the evidence, the authors come to some striking conclusions, many of which challenge the received wisdom concerning cannabis: • Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Historically there have only been 2 deaths worldwide attributed to cannabis, whereas alcohol and tobacco together are responsible for over 100,000 deaths per annum in the UK alone. • Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can the Lens of Human Rights Provide a New Perspective on Drug Control and Point to Different Ways of Regulating Drug Consumption?
    How can the lens of human rights provide a new perspective on drug control and point to different ways of regulating drug consumption? A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2015 Melissa L. Bone School of Law Table of Contents Index of Tables……………………………………………………………………..….5 Table of Cases………………………………………….………………………………6 Table of Statutes, Treaties and Legislative Instruments……………………………....10 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………15 Abstract………………………………………………...…………………………….18 Candidate’s Declaration and Copyright Statement…………………………………...19 Acknowledgements…………………………………...……………………………...20 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…………22 Chapter 1: Understanding the origin and value of human rights and psychoactive consumption………………………………………………………………………….32 1.1 What are human rights and where have they come from?………..……………….33 1.2 Human right foundations and the question of importance…………...……………36 1.3 The grounds for human rights…………………………………………….………42 1.3.1 ‘The universalist challenge’…………………………………………..46 1.4 The origin and value of human psychoactive consumption……………………….49 1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………..…………54 Chapter 2: Understanding how human rights can address the drug policy binary: the conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual………….55 2.1 Defining ‘the State’……………………………………………………...………..56 2.2 Identifying four ‘typical philosophical positions and the binary which underpins them……………………………………………………………….………………….62
    [Show full text]
  • Psilocybin with Psychological Support for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Six-Month Follow-Up
    Psychopharmacology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4771-x ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: six-month follow-up R. L. Carhart-Harris1 & M. Bolstridge1,2 & C. M. J. Day1,2 & J. Rucker 1,3,4 & R. Watts1 & D. E. Erritzoe1 & M. Kaelen1 & B. Giribaldi1 & M. Bloomfield5 & S. Pilling6 & J. A. Rickard7 & B. Forbes8 & A. Feilding9 & D. Taylor10 & H. V. Curran6,11 & D. J. Nutt1 Received: 13 July 2017 /Accepted: 19 October 2017 # The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract for the first 5 weeks post-treatment (Cohen’s d = 2.2 at week 1 Rationale Recent clinical trials are reporting marked improve- and 2.3 at week 5, both p < 0.001); nine and four patients met the ments in mental health outcomes with psychedelic drug-assisted criteria for response and remission at week 5. Results remained psychotherapy. positive at 3 and 6 months (Cohen’s d = 1.5 and 1.4, respectively, Objectives Here, we report on safety and efficacy outcomes for both p < 0.001). No patients sought conventional antidepressant up to 6 months in an open-label trial of psilocybin for treatment- treatment within 5 weeks of psilocybin. Reductions in depressive resistant depression. symptoms at 5 weeks were predicted by the quality of the acute Methods Twenty patients (six females) with (mostly) se- psychedelic experience. vere, unipolar, treatment-resistant major depression re- Conclusions Although limited conclusions can be drawn ceived two oral doses of psilocybin (10 and 25 mg, 7 days about treatment efficacy from open-label trials, tolerability apart) in a supportive setting.
    [Show full text]
  • An Update from the Beckley Foundation AMANDA FEILDING
    MAPS Bulletin Annual Report Reforming Psychedelic Science and Policy: An Update from the Beckley Foundation AMANDA FEILDING Amanda Feilding THE BECKLEY FOUNDATION HAS HAD a very successful year, with that the changes in connectivity between brain regions brought much progress on our dual fronts of Science and Policy. about by psilocybin resemble those seen during meditation and In January the Beckley Foundation–Imperial College Psy- early psychosis: The networks responsible for inner focus and chedelic Research Programme published two ground-breaking external attention, normally acting in opposition to one another, scienti!c papers on the e"ects of psilocybin on cerebral blood become more closely coupled. This can result in a blurring #ow and brain activity, using brain-imaging technology corre- between “inner” and “outer” worlds in all these states—for lated with subjective reports. The !ndings reveal how psilocybin example the “ego-dissolution” and “unitary state of awareness” decreases blood #ow and thereby diminishes the activity of a reported both after taking psychedelics and in the mystical state. network of key “hub centres,” which are responsible for !lter- Another Beckley/Imperial study, into the neural basis of ing and coordinating information. By decreasing this censoring the e"ects of MDMA, was televised in September on Channel 4 activity, psilocybin allows a freer, less constrained state of con- in the UK and watched by over two million people. In response sciousness to emerge. to positive memories, MDMA was found to increase the response One of the “hubs” deprived of blood #ow by psilocybin is of the brain’s sensory cortex.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Law Reform: Moving Beyond Strict Criminal Penalties for Drugs
    Drug law reform: Moving beyond strict criminal penalties for drugs Professor Simon Lenton Deputy Director, NDRI Introduction The term ‘decriminalisation’ can confuse the discussion about drug policy reform as it means so many different things to different people. Indeed many confuse ‘decriminalisation’ with ‘legalisation’, that is, making some aspect of the drug possession/use no longer an offence. More correctly, the term is used to refer to refer to what is termed prohibition with civil penalties, that is, much like speeding in a motor vehicle – illegal, not condoned, but only attracting civil penalties like a fine, with no further criminal actions taken if the fine is paid by the due date. It is likely that others use it as a generic term meaning reducing penalties in comparison to total prohibition with strict criminal penalties. The confusion about what decriminalisation means is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, sensible discussion of drug policy options is impossible when the meanings of terms aren’t shared. Secondly, we tend to be scared of what we don’t understand. Consequently, it is unsurprising that the latest Nielsen poll has found that public support for ‘decriminalisation’ is low, at only 27% (1). Previously it has been found that when the term was explained, support for applying prohibition with civil penalties to cannabis use increased from 64% to 72% (2). According to the National Drug Strategy Survey Australian public support for criminal penalties for possession of cannabis has remained low, ranging from 34% to 39%, in the four surveys conducted between 2001 and 2010. Interestingly, support for legalisation of cannabis use has been even lower declining from 31% in 2001 to 25% in 2010.
    [Show full text]