My Articles and Updates

To receive updates for
new articles and useful information

(These will be no more than monthly)

Subscribe Now to my FREE newsletter

Audio

For audio versions of my articles (in english, with subtitles available), consider subscribing to my YouTube Channel @alipinkandgreen

May 25 update
For reasons I won't bore you with, the way I'm presenting my articles has changed temporarily. If it's a bit confusing to navigate I apologise (hopefully not). I need to wait for the planets to align so it will let me upload pdf and pictures like the good old days again.. 

September 24
I'm told that High committee.co.uk (Digital Magazine) are still experiencing technical issues. So for the time being, articles by me written for them are just available here.

MY ARTICLES AND UPDATES

CONTENTS: MOST RECENT AT THE TOP
(Trialling new feature, click on the coloured title link to go straight to the article section then click the header)

1. Self-Medication: Terminology of Blame and Judgement (July 2025)
Audio version with english subtitles: Part 1 (YouTube)
Part 2

2. Invisible Illnesses: I'd argue to a degree, they all are (May 2025)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube).

3. BLOG POST: A year as a member of the Cannabis Industry Council comes to an end... (January 2025)

4. Why Private Prescriptions, not NHS? An Explainer.
(January 2025)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube)

5. Should the UK Legalize Cannabis? A fact-checker on a Channel 5 discussion programme
(June 2024) 

6. The Integration of Prescription Cannabis Into Mainstream Society: How it Could Be
(High Committee Digital Magazine, May 2024)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube)

7. Cannabis for Treatment-resistant Epilepsy:
How Long Must Our Children Suffer?
(High Committee Digital Magazine, January 2024)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube)

8. Prescription Cannabis: To ID or not to I.D?
That shouldn't be the question 

(High Committee Digital Magazine, October 2023)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube)

9 Cannabis and Mental Health: Addressing the Stigma
(High Committee Digital Magazine, September 2023)
Audio version with english subtitles (YouTube)

10. A Medical Marijuana User in Notts
(Leftlion Magazine, August 2023)

11. Joe Biden pardons those who are criminalized for cannabis possession (October 2022)

12. The Cannabis Con: Why current laws are failing everyone except private clinics (December 2021)

13. Videos of how my movement disorder can respond to vaporising cannabis.

Self-Medication:
Terminology of Blame and Judgement


 ‘Self-Medication’: A term almost always referencing choices, illegal or frowned upon by many or some within society, often accompanied by a strong preference towards advice to do less of whatever you shouldn't be doing (woeful knowledge of addiction, for starters), rather than a serious effort to examine reasons. To me, these are some significant failures in British medicine: Historical, environmental, psychosocial contexts, all fundamentally relevant to health and behaviours, yet largely unexplored. Organs and biological mechanisms continually impact one another. Investigating and viewing them independently makes no scientific or logical sense. Conveyor belts of people given treatments with effects likely to result in another health problem, isn't effective treatment. It's medically-approved deterioration! With personal experience of pharmaceutically-induced issues plus how brutal withdrawal from prescription drugs usually is, my views on medication are likely to differ from someone with no significantly bad experiences. I'd consider accessing cancer treatments, but very reluctantly, given my previous encounters with oncology have been overwhelmingly damaging to at least my mental health. Though certainly not the only example of this therapeutic breakdown, I will never, ever forget my distress and frustration at not being heard when I was trying to explain that ‘gold standard’ treatment or not, an operation resulting clinical menopause was something I wasn't comfortable with at all, given that with the neurological condition, I have many unpleasant symptoms already. With my tumour markers low I was prepared to gamble it was benign this time. I wasn't heard when I said the pressure to go this route, and clerical mistakes and miscommunication had, alongside other issues, driven me to my deepest depression for years. Only when I was shouting and crying on a ward, despite all the antidepressants I was now on, was I finally heard, and treated like a person and not a body part. Unfortunately the pharmaceutical, domino model I described earlier leaves me with no reason to doubt my experience would be different in another department. Another department's problem is no consolation to the patient, the person you gambled with.

 I've long believed it misguided for cannabis to be placed in the hands of ‘medicine’. It can't be measured in the same way as pharmaceuticals, yet we collectively lack imagination to accept this and approach it differently. Lavender, chamomile, and many spices like turmeric have known therapeutic, medicinal properties. But they've not been embraced by health care, private or publicly funded, and their regulation isn't constantly meddled with. I'd largely assume that's because they don't get you high, because successive governments seem to think that with the inequality and unrest in Britain, that's the biggest problem. Give your head a shake, elected folks! You don't honestly believe that reefer madness nonsense, do you? I assure you, my life is still not that exciting! Discrimination against cannabis means that even where it can be, to a reasonable degree measured like for like with pharmaceutical alternatives, it very obviously is treated more unfavourably. Though far higher with synthetic cannabinoids, risk of death, even indirectly, seems exceptionally low [1] compared to many prescribed drugs, and indeed, alcohol. If medicalisation guaranteed treatment irrespective of wealth, that would be a strong argument, but it isn't! So, Self-Medication as a tool of blame and shame in a clinical context surely raises the questions ‘are doctors our ethical and legal guardians or caregivers? What connotations does that have for patient care?’. I'll examine some reasons I feel this conflicts with effective patient care and therapeutic relationships. I've said before and will again, I've encountered loads of excellent clinicians and professionals of various disciplines, I still do, but this article is about the systemic damage, intentional or not, that conflicting roles and priorities might inflict and an individual right to choose. 

Reason 1.
Why is it assumed we only make bad decisions?
The gateway drug argument: People selling ‘hard’ drugs and cannabis (which not all cannabis suppliers do, of course) will make the former easier to obtain, and numerous reasons might lead people to try other substances, but by the same token, why would I want to move from cannabis to something that works in different ways and will do different things? I have severely disabling symptoms that reduce my functioning immensely. Why would I want to make that worse? People might be taking cannabis to mask voices rather than causing them, and I'll grant you that insight is often absent in people experiencing psychotic breaks, but that doesn't mean they're always wrong or that they shouldn't be listened to. Or those taking speed to improve their concentration, cocaine to increase confidence (none of these are in any way recommendations, by the way). Social and healthcare departments might actually know how much therapy and work many of us have done, if there was a co-operative, interactive system with regards to communication. This would be offset to a degree by the misinformation/ misinterpretations within those notes, by those whose preconceptions made them unable to accurately convey what was said or not said. 

As sick and disabled people are likely to be short of money, it seems strange to assume they'd spend on something they didn't believe they needed. Ironically, if my bad choice and reason for poverty was gambling, it's unlikely anyone would have even asked and found out. How surreal it must feel for parents giving their children cannabis oil when they're treated like they're negligent, ignorant, irresponsible, self-medicating by proxy, as it were. It defies logic: An expensive way to be abusive, you'd think. They go to parliament and the papers, for goodness sake. I'd imagine many or most parents of epileptic children have video evidence of cannabis working too. I've seen loads of these myself. I've posted my own. Cannabis was just as effective before I got the respectability, depending on who you talk to, of a prescription. Illicit didn't have testing certificates, but it worked, or at least the right stuff did! 

Reason 2
Oversimplification alters reality.
 People are complex and unique. We experience different things in entirely individual ways. Yet there seems a natural tendency to reduce everything to something simpler, perhaps so we can interpret it in a way that works for the most thought processes. I'd argue a significant shortcoming in this approach is that by doing so, we reduce everything to generalisations which might fit some reasonably well, but certainly not all, possibly not even many. If that isn't acknowledged, you are surely not able to adequately help those who present differently. I lost interest in statistics after having a Cancer they didn't think it was and developing a rare disease. Medically speaking, I almost certainly fit some generalisations, I'd imagine we all would, but I defy plenty. I also lost patience with having concerns over surgery dismissed as “that's unlikely to happen”. So was what happened already, mate. Everything you see is seen for the first time once. There's also an assumption amongst many people, that they can completely understand or grasp a person's hardship simply by thinking about it albeit often not for long, without any comprehension that that is impossible, because they're only viewing it from their own life perspective. 

So: Onto Alcohol. Only a species as bonkers as us would select a depressant as the most consistently legal ‘pleasure-seeking’ drug. It's often said that alcohol destroys lives, but it's consequences of how and when people imbibe it that does that. Alcohol in itself isn't destructive. As we're routinely asked how much we drink in a GP consultation, I've known people disbelieved for saying too little or much, according to the preconceptions of the documenting clinician, so you still can't guarantee what you said is what's written. Are our answers arbitrary then? Where and what and why you're drinking matters. You'll almost certainly be judged if you're drinking too much, perhaps asked why, there are plenty of places where you can get cheap doubles or lower-priced pints. The Tax Office probably won't judge you for going in them either! If you need help, on the other hand, whether there's support in your area and your doctor knows about it is another question again. The ‘Postcode’ Lottery! Do they view it as a health and social issue worthy of help, or a moral failing worthy of disdain? You likely won't be asked how much you drink of the currently more apparently fashionable coffee, despite the fact excess of that could give you palpitations, racing heart and would send my movement disorder berserk. I don't remember my healthy diet being something worthy of much time in these settings, nor congratulations for having always exercised. I do know one person of more advanced years who has been treated like a confused old dear more than once because they couldn't possibly not be on medication by their age. 

Reason 3
Is it possible to have a meaningful therapeutic relationship if doctors are presenting themselves as extensions of the judiciary?
Recently passed amendments in relation to abortion [2][3] is a great example: Some women's health and trust was being put at risk by clinicians reporting them for potentially illegal abortions, and it highlights how poor we are at revisiting archaic laws. Where cannabis patients may feel judged, such as whether they are vaporising their script [4], as directed, or smoking it (which they may have done historically, or there may be another reason), this is a patient group that may well have an extensive history of discrimination, including conflicts with the police and judiciary, whether through legal use or not. The person you're meant to be supporting may also have been naive enough to at least expect compassion within a doctor's consultation room. It might sound harsh, but my personal feeling is that given that there will never not be a need for doctors in all areas, perhaps those who approach those they're prescribing with disdain and judgement should consider switching to a patient demographic they do like. Of course I'm not suggesting that in health terms, smoking is the better choice. I'm just saying there are reasons people do it, and threatening patients or using language that might make them feel under threat doesn't seem like a very effective way to address that. Maybe something crazy like support and education? Conversely and perversely, the judicial and policing system certainly don't seem to be reciprocating by playing medic, given that it's still reported that many of the British public still don't understand the legality changes that 2018 brought about [5]. Are the judged illicit consumers being told that they have a legal alternative they may well qualify for? This is only my opinion, of course, but there's a section entitled ‘Treating patients fairly and respecting their rights’ in the General Medical Council ‘Good Medical Guidance’ [6] that judgement faced by patients is in direct defiance of, namely the right not just to dignity but your right to go against advice being respected). It's hard not to smirk a little at someone who's judging your ethics whilst apparently being hazy over their own. A fine parallel would be that of two US politicians, supremely responsible for the ‘War On Drugs’ which would lead to prohibition here. One, John Ehrilchman, ended up in prison [7] for himself breaking the law (later admitting publicly the malicious origins of drug laws [8]). The other, Richard Nixon, avoided it because he was President, but he would instead publicly admit (during a televised interview with David Frost [9]) that he genuinely didn't see it as law breaking because he was President. See what I'm saying about double standards? 


Reason 4
An overstretched NHS is struggling to offer GP appointments [10], and waiting lists remain long for many assessments and treatments [11]. 
Although this has become a greater issue in more recent years, surely, it's particularly harsh to criticise people for trying to self-treat, for good or bad, when you're not providing the service designed to support, advise and reassure them? Oh, and treat them, actually? Are you recommending they remain in mental or physical pain or anguish in the meantime, potentially getting worse through inaction? It's another example of working with what you've got. I see little sense in early intervention medical scans unless you're equipped to provide the treatment you advise is needed. Otherwise it's an identified problem, and source of anxiety you can't control or solve. Helpful! We're told by the government this is changing but recruitment doesn't wave a magic wand and we're yet to see. 
 
Reason 5
Do we really view Personal Autonomy as an infringement? 
Do we forfeit our right to personal choice by seeking medical advice? The Assisted death debate for terminally ill patients, now headed for the House of Lords for another reading [12], a plea for autonomy in death at least. I myself support its passing, and it's the furthest such a Bill has got. I recognise some of the arguments and misgivings but given I've written this article about autonomy over one's living body, it appears to me that the argument that withholding it in death is primarily to protect the vulnerable doesn't ring true somehow. Surely less contentious, that people who are suffering should not have their decisions made solely by people who can't comprehend what they have and continue to be experiencing. I know at least two people who have been offered medication recently without explanation as to why it's thought they need it. How is genuine informed consent even achievable without this? Clue: If you're not informed, it isn't! 

Conclusion
Whether clinicians or professionals are legally or ethically entitled to approach patient care a certain way, their choices will inevitably impact their relationship with patients, including trust. Existing trust issues from historical abuse or mistreatment, could be made infinitely worse. I'd argue that whatever name you give this, it wouldn't be care. I remember points during my nurse training, one being hearing the word holistic in relation to care, and my enthusiasm that patients should be looked at in their entirety, in the view of our healthcare model. We were even taught Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [13], in recognition of the multiplicity of needs, health being just one, a person requires met in order to function and thrive. It's worth a read to see the clear inspiration in the original intent or purpose, when the British Welfare State [14] and National Health Service was created, soon after its publication. Sadly, the second memory was the stomach churning realisation not long after the first, that ‘the system’ might think that's what it's providing, some individuals certainly try, but in my view, they're kidding themselves by this point. What's being offered has changed, as has the doctor-patient dynamic. Many or most people seeing a different doctor each time, except in private settings, can't not impact the trust within relationships. 

A third recollection was perhaps a couple of years after I developed my neuro condition and had become very physically disabled and therefore, unfortunately dependent on state assistance, both financial and personal, having previously worked for decades, so independent, and gladly so. But the more services I began to need, the more I became aware that systemic therapeutic barriers I've discussed in this article apply in almost exactly the same way, unsurprisingly, they're similar models, in terms of their brokenness actually making them a liability, harmful to wellbeing and quality of life, rather than the supportive provisions they profess to be. If you want your people to get better and behave better (hard when the rules are so convoluted, admittedly), treat them better. We're allowed to make bad choices, indeed, we're sold them. Choosing things because they taste good or feel good is hardly the worst thing anyone could be doing, much as you'd think it was! Do Governments and their agencies genuinely have the right to hold citizens to such higher standards than themselves? Moral right or not, is impossible, surely, to see this inequality as therapeutic. If someone is vaporizing cannabis illicitly to try and improve their lung health, is it honestly not relevant that they've been placed in public housing covered with mould? What if someone reliant on a wheelchair like I am, becomes severely depressed and self-treats in some way primarily because the roads and pavements are so neglected they can't physically go anywhere? I worked in Accident and Emergency for a time. I can entirely see how the ‘timewaster’ trope comes about, but it's hardly fair to blame ‘attendees’ because you are short staffed and knackered and stressed. That person may not have deciphered the algorithms of where they are meant to go instead, and additionally given the potential fear induced by an adverse health event, let's try more listening and less telling for a change! 

References

Drummer, O. H., Gerostamoulos, D., & Woodford, N. W. (2019). Cannabis as a cause of death: A review. Forensic Science International, 298, 298–306.Available at url:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.007 [Accessed 6 July 2025]


McKiernan, J. (2025, June 17). MPs vote to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales. BBC Online[Accessed 2 July 2025] Available at url: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2le12114j9o


Webster, A. F. a. E. (2024, January 23). Medics told not to report illegal abortions to police. BBC NEWS (Online) [Accessed 2 July 2025]. Available at url: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68036171


Coxall, G. . (2025, April 14). Smoking Vs Vaping Prescribed Cannabis - Seed our Future. Seed Our Future.[Accessed 2 July 2025]Available at url:https://www.seedourfuture.co.uk/2025/04/14/smoking-vs-vaping-prescribed-cannabis/


Cannabis Health. (2025, March 26). Quarter of UK adults still unaware medical cannabis can be legally prescribed. Cannabis Health News. https://cannabishealthnews.co.uk/2025/03/26/quarter-of-uk-adults-still-unaware-medical-cannabis-can-be-legally-prescribed/


General Medical Council. (2024). Good Medical Practice . UK: General Medical Council (GMC). [Accessed 2 July 2025], Available at url: https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/the-professional-standards/good-medical-practice


Ehrlichman Is Sentenced To 20 Months to 5 Years. (1974, August 1). New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/01/archives/ehrlichman-is-sentenced-to-20-months-to-5-years-ehrlichman.html [Accessed 6 July 2025]


Baum, D. (2024, April 1). Legalize it all. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ [Accessed 6 July 2025] 


Wikipedia contributors. (2025b, May 31). Nixon interviews. Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon interviews [Accessed 6 July 2025]


Department of Health and Social Care. (2025, April 7). Over 1,500 extra GPs recruited to fix front door of the NHS. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/over-1500-extra-gps-recruited-to-fix-front-door-of-the-nhs


Wainwright, D., & Triggle, N. (2025, June 26). How is your NHS hospital doing on waiting times? BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedg8dz7996o
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. 2025. (HL Bill 112, Private Members Bill, parliamentary session 2024-2025). [Online]. UK Parliament 2025. [Accessed 2 July 2025]. Available from: URL: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3774


Wikipedia contributors. (2025b, July 1). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs [Accessed 6 July 2025]
BBC - History - British History in depth: The Welfare State - Never Ending Reform. (2011, March 10). https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/field_01.shtml [Accessed 6 July 2025]

Invisible Illnesses:
I'd argue to a degree, they all are

By Alipinkandgreen.com (May 2025)

I've been meaning to write an article about invisible Illnesses and disabilities for quite literally years but focus definitely isn't my strong point. Still, we got there in the end. In truth, I'm glad it waited because a few more years of experience of being a disabled person and seeing how vastly differently, and often absurdly, people see you and imagine your challenges has actually made me view it through a very different lens. 

Of course, examples of possible hidden illnesses could be chronic fatigue, depression, anxiety, dyslexia, autism, colitis, crohns, arthritis and a gazillion other things to fit the definition of physically invisible to an observer. As a wheelchair user with movement issues on the other hand, it's fairly difficult to argue that I don't have some problems that can be very clearly seen, even if your eyesight is bad. There are a couple of issues with that. The first is that it's a fine example of the limitations of the binary thinking of humans. You are either Team Visible or Team Invisible. But I have both visible and invisible stuff going on. The chronic fatigue can't be seen but I'd argue is at least as physically debilitating as the lack of interest (by many, thankfully not all) in improving access for wheelchair users in this crazy country. If there were numerous places to go, I wouldn't suddenly have boundless energy, more’s the pity, even taking motivation into account. I wouldn't not have multiple sensory overloading, either. I'd also argue that as someone who has struggled with depression for most of my life, at its peak (or trough, depending on how you want to look at it) it's been more life threatening than anything else I've had, including Cancer. That said, what I'm not trying to do is play Top Trumps with the community who have exclusively invisible issues, because I think they're experiencing discrimination of an entirely different and certainly no less valid nature. They are likely to fall foul of the regular assumption that they look fine so there's nothing wrong with them. Or perhaps that they're pretending for attention or free money, but they still must be fine because they look fine by that person's definition. Either way, intentional or not, this leaves swathes of people disbelieved and unsupported and voiceless, when put bluntly, they've likely got issues they could use help with. 

This really matters, because often those invisible issues need treating with urgency, and there really isn't time to debate the legitimacy of that person's presentation. Someone with social anxiety surely deserves the peace of mind that they can use their prescribed cannabis without having to educate venue holders, just as someone with crohns or urinary incontinence deserves to be able to use a disabled loo without some dickhead informing them they can still walk, so they're not disabled enough. People with dyslexia are not stupid compared to anyone else but I get the sense from many people I've encountered who are diagnosed with it that they've been consistently made to feel it, possibly to the point where they came to believe it themselves. I've always been blessed with good grammar and spelling but if you're rubbish at communicating, they're of limited use. Intelligence is not actually measured or measurable in many regards anyway, but a tendency to value academic ability over common sense likely dooms this demographic to the snobbery they may have to endure. We're told ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, but that's a tricky one, because it feels like it's all some people are likely to have to work with. 

The reason I titled the article as I did is that change in lens I mentioned earlier. I'm continually amazed by people's misconceptions about physical disabilities. That we can't talk. That we can't think. That we're all incontinent. That we've always been disabled. My personal favourite is still the taxi driver who told me that me and hospital services have got me the wrong type of wheelchair. Because his lack of experience apparently didn't preclude him from being the more intelligent or knowledgeable on the subject. It's actually this particular one that led me to pondering whether there is more crossover in the visible invisible arena than I previously realised. After all, in any exchange of interpersonal communication we can rarely, if ever, receive information entirely as it is intended. Our brain, experience, ways of communicating and other factors are all so very different. So what we think we've communicated, demonstratively, verbally, written etc. and what was received, and vice versa are inevitably different. We think we've communicated our needs or issues clearly but there will always be cases where we've not been even slightly successful. 

So what does communication barriers have to do with anything? Well, even if someone can see there's something wrong with me, their preconceptions may be so strong that nothing I can say or do will dissuade them that they don't still have a better idea of disability, or more accurately, my own experience of it than I do, after 11 years of living the dream. And if you're being misseen to such an extensive degree, are your issues actually being seen in any more meaningful way than those with invisible ones? I'd argue not, but the outcome is not dissimilar in terms of you're not disbelieved as a feigner, but you're told you're doing things wrong, routinely, by self appointed experts, and your verbal and written protestations and attempts at reason rarely resolve much. You too are essentially left voiceless. 

Everyone, irrespective of health, is now constantly subjected to unprecedented types of external stressors, in a technology obsessed world that gives us no choice (in whether we wish to adopt it), no training (in how to use it) and no flexibility (in how it might work in a way our unique brains understand). But our rationale that we can't do something outside our skill set, however aggressive the reminder, will rarely be heeded in many walks of life. So the emails keep coming, along with the information you apparently need to know but can't understand. The number of times I've explained I cannot compute complicated information or deal with verbal exchanges on the telephone has made a sparse difference to the methods people use to communicate with me. Their previous assessments rarely stop them expecting me to go through it all again each time. In the world of capitalism, absolutely everything requires a password which we're told should be different each time, and if you can navigate the blind fury of not talking to an actual person when you actually need one, your jedi concentration will probably be scuppered by an advert anyway. Or it crashes. I couldn't have dealt with that before a neuro disorder and I definitely can't now. Not many other people can, but there's still the assumption that they can. Or perhaps just that they're going to have to. 

So in conclusion, I suppose the takeouts from this are that it's not just what the eyes are seeing and how they're seeing it, but what the mind’s seeing, and how it's interpreting it. But visible or invisible, it's clear that anyone suffering from any type of chronic ailment is likely to be dealing with some level of discrimination to some degree that they could likely do without. I tend to view any ‘How Are We Doing? surveys as a cynical waste of my time and indicative of a kneejerk reaction to knowing that their service is in fact fairly rubbish, rather than a will to improve it. In fairness, I don't think the NHS even bothers trying in this regard now but as this is very clearly a health issue as well as an educational and societal one, I can't help but think that unless they actually move towards patient-centred care and actually listening (as opposed to very occasionally pretending you are), the problems will remain static and unaddressed. Patients' and sufferers' voices are the only way of even beginning to address the misconceptions about illness, surely. That's where the premise of our health education still primarily stems from, after all. I've met and still meet with clinicians who do listen, but that doesn't mean there haven't ever been misunderstandings or that I've never felt discriminated against by them at times, even if it was unintentional. Or simply not heard. And for those people who don't seem to listen at all, it feels like wasted energy trying to explain. Much advice towards progress seems reliant on the sufferers, for want of a more preferable term, explaining to people in quite a lot of detail, often, about their illness or disability so as to better educate others. Much as I hate most of what the Internet offers, it does have tons of information for those wishing to educate themselves by people, including myself. But when I'm out of the house, my time and what I do with it is reserved for activities, none of which include talking to strangers about my health issues. In fact, my most consistent activity is avoiding eye contact and trying to avoid them altogether. Our society needs a big injection of compassion right now. We need to shout and judge less and listen more. Well, some of us might still need to shout. 

A year ends as a member of the Cannabis Industry Council

(January 2025)
Last month, my year as a member of the Cannabis Industry Council expired, which was crowdfunded by campaigners who obviously have faith in me, despite very few having met me. I I took the decision not to figure if it was feasible to renew it as money is scarce these days for many, and attending and planning around zoom meetings is very much too difficult with a neuro condition if you're me. It's difficult to build rapport often, not always, when you don't meet with people in any capacity, and that makes it hard to achieve much. That said, I still have much faith in what the C.I.C are trying to do, kudos to anyone for trying, I say, and found it really interesting learning more about how priorities are determined there.  They're producing the majority of guidance in an arena where because of opacity of the law and the repercussions of that, accompanied by the predictable unwillingness of policy makers to follow through on that part of their legislative responsibilities, someone has to.
I'll be following closely as I can to see what comes next.

MY VIDEOS

VIDEO:My Movement Disorder before vaporizing Cannabis (2020)

VIDEO: My Movement Disorder after vaporizing Cannabis (2020)

Page update July 25