Another crazy news story from the UK. As you might have read David Nutt was sacked because of him criticizing the Government’s decision to reclassify cannabis as a Class B substance.. He argued that the scientific research was devaluated and the UK government making an “artificial” separation of alcohol and tobacco from illegal drugs.

If you thought that was strange, wait until you hear this.. The new chairman that will replace David Nutt, Les Iversen, had exactly the same opinion with regards to Cannabis. During a lecture in 2003 he said the following;

“There have been no deaths to date caused by use of cannabis. Cannabis should be legalised, not just decriminalized, because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.”

In an article in 2003 he wrote that cannabis had been incorrectly classified for nearly 50 years as a dangerous drug and that it was one of the “safer” recreational drugs.

When he was questioned about these remarks during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Professor Iversen stated the following; “I don’t remember saying that. It’s certainly not my position now”

“We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness. I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

We wonder what these new facts are? Is it the fact that he will get sacked, like David Nutt,  if he says that cannabis should be legalized? Or the fact that he would never have been appointed in the first place if he still had that opinion?

With this post we want to clarify some of the misconceptions that a lot of people seem to have on skunk.

Firstly, let us point out that Skunk is nothing more then a name for (mostly indica) potent weed. It is NOT some genetically engineered super dangerous new type of weed. (special announcement for the media; did you guys notice the word NOT? )

For your information, the Dutch ska band “Doe maar” made an album called skunk back in 1981! So the term has been around for a while. However, even if it was a new kind of weed.. Will this new super potent weed be somehow more dangerous than the weed smoked 20 years ago? So what if weed is more potent? This only means that you have to smoke less of it.. Isn’t that supposed to be a good thing? And what about hash? Shouldn’t this be even more dangerous? Even in the seventies people smoked hash which is a lot more potent than any skunk you can buy nowadays.

The third argument that the anti-legalization lobby likes to use is that skunk/cannabis use somehow causes schizophrenia? Let’s pretend for a moment that this is proven to be true ( scientists still seem to disagree ) isn’t that all the more reason to have a legal and regulated market for it? What is the worst that can happen? In the Netherlands adults are allowed to buy small amounts of weed and this has worked just fine for the last 20-odd years.

Just to compare the two systems.. 9.7 percent of youngsters (15-24) use cannabis at least once a month in the Netherlands, compared to 15.8 percent in the UK.