Talking About Cannabis – Some people never learn

Debra Bell and co are back with a new press release on their website claiming they are due to receive charitable status next month.  So it’s back to our friends at the Charity Commission:

Dear Mr Bullock

It is with regret that I feel compelled to write to you once more about the organisation Talking About Cannabis (TAC).

Whilst I fully accept the previous situation to have been resolved, this organisation now appears to be claiming that they will receive charitable status next month.

http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/press%20release%20july%2008.pdf

The Charities Act is unequivocal that all charities must have public benefit. It is not clear in any way how TAC has demonstrated this to date. By their own admission TAC has operated purely as a lobbying and campaigning organisation with three distinct demands:

“1. The public to be made aware of the scientific and medical facts about the potential effects of cannabis (particularly ‘skunk’) on the mental health of children and teenagers.

2. Preventative drug-education in schools, using powerful marketing techniques, to replace the current harm-reduction education. We need to help prevent children from becoming users, that way demand will stop, and we need to start early – at primary level.

3. Reclassification of cannabis back to Class B from Class C, to send out the powerful, unequivocal message that smoking cannabis in childhood and teen years is highly dangerous.”

http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/signup.htm

The second too demands are clearly political in nature and therefore not eligible for charitable status. The first demand is more complex.

TAC wish to make the public aware “of the scientific and medical facts about the potential effects of cannabis (particularly ‘skunk’).”

Whilst this is a demand that may be viewed as charitable TAC’s record on this is excruciatingly poor. TAC’s expert drug’s adviser appears to be Mary Brett who wrote the document intended to be distributed to schools called Cannabis – The Facts.

http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/TheFacts.htm

Mary Brett is not a scientist but a former school teacher. She is in no way qualified to make the claims she does in this document which has not been, nor is likely to be, endorsed by any scientist.

Brett deliberately misrepresents scientific studies, whilst ignoring opposing evidence, to paint an entirely distorted picture of the current nature of scientific research into cannabis. It could even be said to be damaging for children to receive drug’s education information which is so blatantly dishonest.

TAC do not have a single scientist on their list of ‘advisors’ and the only reputable drug’s organisation, Addaction, appear to have withdrawn their support for the organisation.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/talking-about-cannabis-made-of-fail/

It is also not clear whether this information has been distributed to any schools at all, if so rendering any claims that this organisation has contributed to the public benefit at all to be entirely false.

TAC claim that they will be setting up a helpline for concerned parents, but it is clear that this has not happened to date and no funding is yet in place to support it.

This helpline is in itself of great concern. Not one medical professional agreed with Debra Bell’s assertion that her son was psychotic. No diagnosis has ever been made concerning her son’s mental health as the Cannabis Dairies make clear.

http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/Diary.htm

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of both Mental Health Treatment and Substance Misuse Treatment. It is clearly unusual, and arguably bad practice, for an organisation working with a vulnerable client group to breach this by publishing personal details of named individuals on a publicly accessible website without their consent.

TAC claim that all helpline staff will be fully trained volunteers, however given that nobody in the organisation has any credible medical qualifications or experience in working with substance misusers it is unclear how this will be achieved.

Furthermore given the inaccurate claims made by their scientific adviser it is worrying that these distortions could be disseminated to the general public and in particular concerned and vulnerable parents and children.

As to the group’s finances, TAC have repeatedly stated that they have been existing purely on volunteer support.

As the Charity Commission do not normally register charities with an income of less than £5000 a year it is unclear why the Commission appears to have made the decision to do so now.

If the commission have not made this decision then it is clear that TAC are once mis-representing their status as they did earlier when they falsely claimed to be a charity.

It is important to remember that TAC have been attempting to fundraise on the back of these claims, which could be considered fraudulent.

Finally it is worthy of none that four of TAC’s ‘advisers’ are Conservative Party MPs and their Patron is Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Conservative Party Chief Whip. None of the other political parties are represented.

http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com/campaigngroup.htm

(Interestingly Tim Loughton MP denies that he is an adviser to the group, telling me: “I am not an adviser I am a sponsoring MP for this newly formed Parliamentary group. Your comments are noted”)

The allegiance to the Conservative Party is strengthened by the interview with David Cameron featured on their Events and Media page. Again, none of the other political parties are represented.

To summarise:

Can the Commission clarify if it is true that TAC are due to receive charitable status next month?

If so, does the Commission not agree that this organisation has to date been a purely political campaigning organisation with strong links to one of the main political parties.  Can the Commission explain exactly how TAC have demonstrated a benefit to the public?

Does the Commission consider an organisation which, whether for reasons of propaganda or ignorance, has grossly misled the public over the science of cannabis, is acting in the interests of the public good?

Does the Commission feel that to date the groups incorrect or dubious claims in several areas renders them competent to serve as a Registered Charity?

Does the Commission feel that a group which flouts normally considered good practice in Substance Misuse treatment is suitable to be accepted as a Registered Charity?

If it is true that the Commission is registering an organisation with an annual income of less than £5000 can you explain why this is?

I await your response with interest.

Regards

Johnny Void

(complain about charities here)