The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld two complaints against a CBD advert that appeared on the Gemporia television channel on 22 May 2021.
The UK’s advertising regulator, the ASA, has conducted an investigation into a teleshopping presentation for ProLife CBD Oils, which featured on Gemporia, and made numerous claims about the health benefits of the CBD products.
Featuring a presenter from Gemporia and one of the co-founders from ProLife CBD, the advert made reference that the products were registered with the Food Standards Agency (FSA), and claimed the products could help with conditions such as schizophrenia, mad cow disease, sickle cell anaemia, addiction, and antibiotic resistance, amongst other health conditions.
The claims were challenged on whether the advert was misleading, whether the oils are effective for treating the claimed conditions, and whether the health claims complied with the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP).
The ASA ruled that the presentation breached the BCAP Code rules 13.6 and 13.6.2, related to food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims.
In response to the complaints, the ASA noted that “Gemporia said they were not able to substantiate the claims or demonstrate that they were authorised claims in the Great Britain nutrition and health claims (NHC) Register (the NHC Register)”, and that “they had understood that because a Novel Foods application had been submitted to the FSA, the products were allowed to be marketed and any references made in relation to this were based on that assumption, but that they had misunderstood the context.”
The ASA said: “The ASA considered that consumers would understand from the presentation that ProLife CBD oils could treat or help with all the conditions that were mentioned, including those that appeared on the two presentation slides, in the testimonials and those mentioned by the presenters.
“We concluded the claims implied the product, a food, prevented, treated or cured human disease, which was prohibited under the Code.”
Mayor of London urged to drop cannabis diversion pilot
The pilot would “send the wrong message to young Londoners” say MPs.
15 MPs have written to the Mayor of London requesting he drop a pilot scheme that would divert young people away from the criminal justice system.
A group of Conservative MPs have urged Sadiq Khan to drop the proposed pilot scheme saying that it would have “wider ramifications than heightened violent crime”.
MP for Orpington, Gareth Bacon, publicly stated that: “Khan’s policing trial would send the wrong message to young Londoners. Cannabis is not harmless, and using it is not a victimless crime.”
Together with colleagues, I have written to the Mayor urging him to drop his scheme to effectively decriminalise cannabis in parts of London.
Khan’s policing trial would send the wrong message to young Londoners. Cannabis is not harmless, and using it is not a victimless crime. pic.twitter.com/AhzNdHoLI2
— Gareth Bacon MP (@GarethBaconMP) January 12, 2022
The MPs state they believe the scheme, which they suggest in the letter will “effectively decriminalise” cannabis possession, risks inflaming violence in the city by funnelling cash into the pockets of criminals.
The pilot scheme, which is similar to others being run across the country, has been put forward to be trialled in Bexley, Lewisham and Greenwich. It aims to divert 18 to 14-year-olds away from the criminal justice system if caught in possession of small amounts of cannabis.
The scheme intends to prevent young people’s lives from being blighted by criminal records for low-level crime and to provide counselling and drug education to mitigate the potential harms of drug use in the lives of young people.
Drug reform group Volteface, which produced the Lewisham-commissioned report suggesting the scheme, has highlighted that it would not be effective decriminalisation but a diversion pilot.
Speaking to Cannabis Wealth, Katya Kowalski, head of operations at Voletface, commented: “I think what this shows is that there is a disconnect between what MPs are coming out and stating, what the media is coming out and stating, and what is actually taking place.
“There’s a lack of understanding around what this [scheme] actually is – stating that crime and violence will go up when, in fact, these measures are trying to prevent crime and tackle problematic drug use from its core. I think there is a disconnect and a lack of understanding around what decriminalisation actually means.”
National charity, Revolving Doors, which works to help decision-makers develop solutions “that address the underlying systemic faults that can trap people within the crisis-crime cycle”, pointed out that “diversion is not decriminalisation”.
Diversion is not decriminalisation.
Diversion stops young adults getting caught up in a cycle of crisis and crime.
Diversion reduces reoffending and, when done well, puts young adults in touch with vital support networks.
Diversion works. https://t.co/OICuC6E4Qn
— Revolving Doors (@RevDoors) January 14, 2022
In 2011, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) noted in a report that: “The ACMD also believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs.
“For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses.”
Reform organisation Transform Drugs highlights that other similar schemes run throughout the UK and across the globe, however, show evidence that such programmes can prevent crime by reducing reoffending, reducing racial disparities in the criminal justice system and reducing some drug use.
Kowalski highlighted that the pilot scheme would help young people from vulnerable communities and is aiming to tackle racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system – particularly in London around drug possession.
“I think one thing that the MPs are disregarding is the fact this is a pilot scheme. It is not a widespread policy change. What the scheme is looking at doing is actually collecting evidence and seeing whether a scheme like this does lower reoffending, whether it does lower crime. I am confident that the results will come in and show that.”
Towards the end of 2021, the UK Government released its ten-year drug strategy that aimed to move away from treating drug use and addiction as a criminal matter, and towards treating it as a health matter. The strategy intends to cut crime and get more people into treatment.
“It is surprising that these MPs are coming out against the scheme as the UK drug strategy that came out at the beginning of December is in fact completely in line with this,” added Kowalski.
“There is a focus on diversion – moving away from criminalisation and towards a health approach for drug users.
“I think [the letter] shows the reactive nature of drug policy, where people come out against it just because they feel like there is a kind of moral infringement. Drug policy creates a lot of immediate reactions and feelings rather than what the state of play is and what’s actually taking place.”
On January 4, a spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “The idea of the scheme, which is already used by other police forces across the country, would be to divert young people who are found with a small amount of cannabis away from the criminal justice system and instead provide help and support. This has been shown to reduce reoffending.
“Reducing crime is the Mayor’s top priority and he will continue to explore and implement the most effective solutions to help to divert young people away from drug use and crime for good.”
“This is a great initiative to move young people away from exploitation and an illegal drug trade,” said Kowalski.
MP Gareth Bacon did not respond for comment at the time of publishing.
New report lays out cannabis social equity principles for UK
The new report for the UK’s legal cannabis industry has been published by the national centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law in the UK, Release.
Release has launched its new report exploring equity and social justice initiatives within UK cannabis reform.
The new report from Release highlights how the UK is lagging behind in this global conversation.
It states that the UK must repair the harms and historical injustices done by cannabis prohibition, and contains 14 equity principles to integrate into the UK’s future legal market to ensure a “just, fair and equitable cannabis market in the UK”.
The report, Regulating Right, Repairing Wrongs: Exploring Equity and Social Justice Initiatives within UK Cannabis Reform, is supported by 15 organisations including the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform.
The report states: “The foundations of cannabis prohibition and ethnicity are intertwined, and without recognising this legacy of racial injustice and the profound impact this has had (and continues to have) on Black and Brown communities, cannabis reform remains unfinished business.”
The disproportionate impact on minority groups
The report builds on the organisation’s national research which highlights the disproportionate policing relating to cannabis of ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups.
It highlights that over half a million people are subject to police stop and search every year in England and Wales, with Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic groups being more than 4.1 times more likely to be searched than White people.
The report states that: “The disparity is particularly pronounced for Black people, who were 8.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people, despite being no more likely than the White population to use controlled substances.”
With only 20 per cent of searches (2019/20) resulting in an outcome linked to the reason for the search, highlights the report, this inequity has resulted in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) calling for a debate on the use of stop and search in the policing of controlled drugs.
Such harms surely need to be addressed imminently – however, one benefit of the UK’s lack of improvement on cannabis-related policy is that the country has the chance to implement best practice from the get-go, highlights report co-author, Amal Ali.
Ali stated: “The lack of progression to date in the UK means that thousands of people each year – disproportionately people from Black and other ethnic minority communities, and people living in poverty – continue to receive life-changing criminal records for cannabis-related offences.
“The only benefit to our lack of progression is that we are able to observe and adopt best practice from other jurisdictions that have pioneered social equity models of cannabis reform.
“We know that when these principles are not front and centre, people continue to be punished for cannabis use and the harms caused by the war on cannabis are not rectified.”
The report puts forward that any legal cannabis retail market “must adopt an anti-racist framework of policies and practices based on equity creation and must take steps to ensure diversity and inclusion among its actors”, as well as outlining a roadmap to prioritise and protect individuals vulnerable to the harms of prohibition in legal recreational markets.
Katrina Ffrench, founder and director of Unjust UK, commented: “The UK is headed towards a future where cannabis is legal and regulated, and this report by Release highlights the steps we must take to ensure that equity and social justice are at the foundation of any legalisation effort.
“Cannabis prohibition has disproportionately harmed Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people and communities.
“To repair these wrongs, any legislation should ensure that members of these communities are not just welcomed, but actively assisted and empowered in a new legal cannabis market.”
Justice models for cannabis reform
Looking towards justice models of cannabis reform in the US, the report’s principles are designed to ensure that “the same people who are locked up by punitive drug policies are not locked out of the legal market.”
The principles focus on:
- Reinvesting tax revenue into over-criminalised communities and supporting harm reduction
- Removing criminal or civil sanctions for use or possession of cannabis
- Automatic release from prison for cannabis-related prisoners and expungement of past cannabis-related convictions
- Non-commercial domestic cultivation of cannabis
- Co-operative cannabis distribution models such as social clubs, among others.
Co-author and policy lead at Release, Dr Laura Garius, commented: “The UK Government’s new drug strategy regurgitated a ‘tough on drugs’ rhetoric, despite the Home Office’s own research concluding that the estimated £1.6bn spend per year on drug law enforcement is not impacting levels of drug use.
“Change is inevitable – cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the UK and the world, and it is simply too lucrative a market for politicians to ignore. However, we must make sure that cannabis will be regulated right.
“The legal renaissance of cannabis is a vital opportunity to address the harm that cannabis prohibition has caused to Black and Brown communities and to people with lived experience of cannabis policing.
“Social equity models of cannabis reform are already being developed around the world while the UK is left faltering behind. We must be prepared to follow in these footsteps and recognise that cannabis reform is not progressive if the harms continue for some.”
Senior Policy Analyst at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Steve Rolles, stated: “The legal regulation of cannabis markets is no longer a theoretical discussion – it is being debated and implemented in jurisdictions on every continent.
“The inevitability of change creates a responsibility on policymakers to ensure that reforms serve the needs of the whole community, not just the profit-seeking priorities of big corporate actors.
“This means hardwiring a clear social justice agenda into legislation from the outset, in particular making sure that the marginalised communities who carried the greatest burden of the drug war’s failure are able to share in the peace dividends.”
The paper emphasises that social equity and public health must be the primary goals of cannabis law reform in the UK, concluding that: “The war on drugs has been a costly failure and despite the countless lives that have been devastated, it is estimated that globally $100bn is devoted per annum to enforcement-led approaches.
“Despite the recent claims by current UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, that he has “absolutely no intention of legalising cannabis”, it is clear that the legalisation and regulation of cannabis for adult recreational use is fast approaching the UK, as demonstrated by the plethora of cannabis advisory companies and thinktanks that have emerged in recent years – and the influence of the market and lobbyists cannot be ignored.
“When this occurs, civil society must be prepared to push for reforms grounded in principles of racial and social justice, and we must ensure that any new framework does not lock out the very people who are locked up by punitive and racially-biased policies.”
Release has published a signup form for any civil society organisation to sign should they wish to endorse the principles. Click here to find the form.
Italian signatures calling for referendum on cannabis have been verified
Divorce and abortion legalisation have also been introduced through popular referendums.
Italian officials have confirmed that activists in Italy have collected enough signatures for a referendum in the Spring on cannabis.
Last year, activists in Italy handed in over 630,000 signatures calling for a referendum on cannabis. The Supreme Court of Cassation has confirmed that this is enough to trigger a referendum that could be held in Spring.
There is just one more step before this happens. The legality of the proposal’s provisions must be debated by a separate constitutional court.
The verdict will be issued on 15 February before a date for the referendum is confirmed. The purpose of this debate will be to decide if a yes verdict of the referendum would challenge the constitution, the Italian fiscal system or any international treaties.
On their Facebook page, the activist group calling for the referendum said: “Today the Court of Cassation informed us that the signatures we delivered in October are sufficient to call the #ReferendumCannabis next spring. It is wonderful news that we have been waiting for days. Now the last, fundamental opinion is that of the Constitutional Court which will be expressed on February 15th to fix the date of the vote. While we are waiting for the final ok we cannot sit idle, so we are starting to organise a national mobilisation to inform all citizens that cannabis is better legal.”
In Italy, a popular referendum can be called if a petition secures over 500,000 signatures before a September 30 deadline. Campaigners from several pro-cannabis organisations and political parties managed to gather 500,000 in one week. If the public votes to decriminalise then it could mean the purchase, sale and cultivation of the drug will become legal under Italian law.
The referendum would seek to amend a 1990 law that makes cannabis sales punishable with two to six months in prison. It also makes possession punishable with the suspension of driving licenses. Although Italy initially decriminalised recreational cannabis in 1993, a 2006 law introduced penalties on consumers and tripled prison sentences until it was altered in 2014.
Under current law, consumers can be fined and have their personal documents such as a driving licence suspended.
The campaigners state that legalising cannabis could create thousands of new jobs and increase tax revenue for the state.
Supreme Court of Cassation has now verified the legitimacy of all signatures while the Constitutional Court will ensure the referendum question is in line with the Italian constitution. If all the signatures are validated then the President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, can establish a date for the referendum. Italian citizens may vote yes to remove the article of narcotic law that criminalises cannabis cultivation for personal use and the penalties for possession.
If it is approved then Italy would become the fourth EU member state to legalise along with Portugal, the Czech Republic and Estonia. Italy was one of the first states to legalise medical cannabis in 2007.
The campaigners wrote on their Facebook page: “More than 500,000 online signatures in just a week for the #ReferendumCannabis. We celebrate them by thanking you one by one because this is a first and not just in Italy.
“But now the race continues, to secure this finish line we have very few days to collect many more. So with a smile, we keep sharing, explaining, taking to the streets, discussing because we know exactly what we want: legal cannabis and Italy free from the mafia.”
It is estimated that around 6 million Italians use cannabis. The European Drug Report stated around 1.8 per cent of adults in the European Union used cannabis daily. A recent poll has also shown that 47.8 per cent of those who participated are in favour of legalising cannabis in Italy.
Divorce and abortion legalisation in Italy was also achieved through the referendum process.
In 2021, it was announced that Italy could legalise the cultivation of up to four cannabis plants at home as part of reforms approved by the Lower House’s Justice Committee. While it legalised small-scale cultivation, the penalties for selling may increase from six to ten years.
Speaking with Cannabis Wealth about the prospect of cultivation in the home being legalised, Guido Silvestri, a board member for Volt Italia explains the reality of medical cannabis in Italy. Volt is a pan-European party that supports cannabis legalisation in all 30 countries where it is active.
“In principle in Italy, since 2006, doctors have been able to prescribe magisterial preparations containing cannabis-based active substances for medical use. The practice is unfortunately very different and cumbersome for patients.
“Doctor is never obliged to prescribe this therapy and many refuse even to consider cannabis as a therapeutic option because they do not know it. Even when the patient finds one of the few pharmacies ready to prepare cannabis (only 600 out of 19,000 total in Italy), they will likely experience the continuous cannabis shortage linked to very high demand and little supply.”
He added: “Many patients are therefore forced to buy cannabis on the illegal market or to self-cultivate it, with the risk of criminal investigation and trial, or administrative sanctions. In September, a proposal of law to decriminalise the home cultivation of a limited number of plants was eventually approved by a commission of the Parliament.”
He explains that there is already a backlash to the proposals to legalise: “Prohibitionist politicians have announced an avalanche of amendments to immediately and definitively crush the proposal. At this point, about a year and a half after the dissolution of the Houses, there is a high risk that Parliament will not be able to approve a text definitively, leaving patients unprotected and 6 million cannabis consumers in the hands of the Mafia.”
Guido commented on the petition: “Associations like Meglio Legale, Antigone, “Luca Coscioni”, together with few small and new parties, like Volt, Possibile, that supported cannabis legalisation in Italy, decided to try to collect the 500,000 signatures needed to set a referendum that eliminates the crime of cultivation and cancels administrative sanctions. For the first time in Italy, it is possible to collect signatures digitally; this is an innovation introduced only a few weeks ago.”
He concluded: “This is likely the consequence of the strong potential of the digital signature and the large distance between the sentiment of the population and the perception of the traditional political parties that seat in the parliament. The Italian population will eventually have the possibility to be informed and vote on cannabis-based on facts and not old ideologies.”