During the time of cannabis prohibition there has been some absurd claims from those who support cannabis prohibition and drug laws in general.

The US Government declaring that cannabis has no medicinal value while simultaneously holding patents (like 6630507) for its medicinal value and even supplying herbal cannabis to a small number of patients because their own courts confirmed that both the medicinal value and need was established beyond doubt is just one of many examples of the outright insanity that dictates the law concerning cannabis.
Another example is the contradiction from the UK Government who also insist that cannabis has no medicinal value and outlaw it as a dangerous drug while simultaneously allowing GW Pharmaceuticals to grow literally tonnes of cannabis both for research and for production of their "cannabis based" drugs, like Sativex and Epidiolex (both of which are just cannabis extracted from different strains, Sativex is cannabis oil diluted into a tincture, Epidiolex is literally just pure cannabis oil).

The list of absurdities surrounding the prohibition of cannabis are depressingly long and the false claims used in attempt to justify the criminalisation of cannabis are shamefully frequent.
But sometimes things become so absurd that they astound even the most weathered individual and the level of ignorance and/or dishonesty that is being displayed becomes so alarming that it almost becomes criminal for us to ignore it, especially when such an absurdity comes from the ruling authorities that basically control our lives.
This is an example of that level of ridiculousness.

On 24th August (2016) the Sydney Morning Herald published an article titled "Trial of cannabis withdrawal spray popular with middle-aged pothead dads"
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/trial-of-cannabis-withdrawal-spray-sativex-popular-with-middleaged-pothead-dads-20160823-gqzjna

The spray in question, that is being trialled by Sydney University, is a patented drug called Sativex. To understand fully just how absurd the article and trial in question is, it is important to be aware of exactly what Sativex is.
Despite the patented status of Sativex, it is nothing more than cannabis oil diluted in a glycerine and alcohol tincture. Though the article does mention that Sativex is a "cannabis based" spray it clearly tries to represent Sativex as something different from cannabis. It is not different.
Unlike other "cannabis based" drugs that have been patented and approved (while cannabis in unpatented form remains illegal) for medicinal use, Sativex is not a synthesised or even isolated cannabinoids. It is a full plant extract, with all the cannabinoids present in cannabis you could buy (illegally) on the street or grow (illegally) yourself.
Prior to Sativex, the only "cannabis based" drugs that were approved since cannabis prohibition begun were synethic versions of isolated compounds, like Marinol for example which is synthetic THC.

Yet somehow, despite being essentially no different to the cannabis tinctures that doctors used prior to prohibition and medicinal users and providers have illegally produced during this ongoing prohibition, Sativex has been approved and patented as a "cannabis based" drug.
But make no mistake, Sativex IS cannabis. It is not a synthetic version of a cannabinoid or selected cannabinoids. It is not even an isolated cannabinoid or isolated cannabinoids. It is a full plant extract.

The best way to rebut the false/absurd claims of the article, as well as the false premise of the trial is alludes to, is to take them in the order they were made.
The article begins by talking about a 35 year old "pothead" dad who joined the trial to see if Sativex could help with his "addiction" to cannabis.
The article states "After taking part in a Sydney University trial of a cannabis-based spray called Sativex that controls withdrawal symptoms, he has been off marijuana for five weeks, and is surprised to find he is functioning normally without it."
It is simply unacceptably and ridiculously false to claim that a man who is consuming Sativex is "off marijuana". Sativex is marijuana.

The article (and the University of Sydney, that is conducting this ridiculous trial) is portraying the use of Sativex for cannabis addiction to being akin to the use of methadone for heroin and morphine addiction (not in severity of addiction but in regards to the basic premise that you can use a similar but slightly different drug to wean you off of a more addictive or dangerous drug). Methadone is a synthetic drug that provides similar effects to heroin and morphine but it is not the same drug, so is deemed a viable option for treating addiction to heroin and morphine.
Sativex, however, is cannabis. It is not even a synthetic drug, it is natural cannabis.
This trial is literally using cannabis to wean you off cannabis.
Does that sound ridiculous and absurd? That is because it is.

It is true that Sativex has other ingredients and does not consist of cannabis only. But the cannabis is the only "active" ingredients in it.
The glycerine and alcohol present is not part of the medicinal effects, they are just used to dilute the cannabis oil (just like traditional cannabis tinctures) with peppermint added for flavouring. But Sativex is a complete cannabis extract and consists of ALL the cannabinoids present in the plant it was extracted from, which includes the much demonised THC.

Not only is THC present in Sativex, and as a result is psychoactive, but this is intentionally the case. Sativex is an extract that has come from a strain with significant THCA/THC content and has been sufficiently cooked to complete a process known as decarboxylation. This process converts the raw THCA from the plant, which is not psychoactive, into THC that is psychoactive (a process which is unnecessary for cannabis smokers as the heat involved in vaporising cannabis causes instant and total decarboxylation but is required to activate the psychoactive effects in cannabis that is eaten).
The THC present is intentionally there because it is part of the medicinal effect of Sativex (a rather large part).
As the makers of Sativex (GW Pharmaceuticals) have themselves demonstrated, there are strains of cannabis that are so high in CBD and low in THC that an oil can be made that has virtually no THC present at all (in fact this is exactly what they did with their other drug Epidiolex, which is from a strain of cannabis that is CBD dominant).
In addition to using strains with little to no THC present, non psychoactive cannabis medicines can be consumed in their raw form. For example, even high THC strains are only psychoactive when decarboxylation has converted the raw THCA (the acidic precursor to THC) into THC. As raw THCA does not have any psychoactive effects in its raw form and only becomes psychoactive when it converts to THC (which is usually achieved through sufficient heat).

The facts really do speak for themselves here and the absurdity of using cannabis (in the form of a patented tincture like Sativex) to wean someone off of cannabis is ridiculous in every single way. In addition to how absurd such a scenario is, it is also incredibly dishonest for the guardian, or Sydney University (or anyone else), to suggest that someone who uses cannabis in the form of Sativex is "off marijuana". It would be like an alcoholic claiming to be "off alcohol" while drinking wine on a daily basis.
Sativex is cannabis, cannabis that has been intentionally cooked for the express purpose of converting all the raw (non-psychoactive) THCA into the psychoactive THC. In fact it even lists the effects associated with the high of cannabis as part of the "side effects" from using Sativex.

http://sativex.co.uk/patients-and-carers/sativex/possible-side-effects/
So don't let the shamelessly false claims from both Sydney University or the Sydney Morning Herald fool you. Sativex is cannabis, it is a full plant extract containing significant, and psychoactive, quantities of THC and is no different to cannabis that is illegal for regular people to grow. Don't let the patent fool you and don't let ridiculous trials that claim to be examining its potential to treat "cannabis addiction" fool you. A person consuming Sativex is still consuming cannabis, is likely still getting high from it, and by no rational standard can be deemed as "off marijuana".

Article by Matt Sands