IS IT A CRIME TO WANT TO BE WELL?

For six years, Mark and Lezley Gibson supplied cannabis to sufferers
of multiple sclerosis.

The police knew what they were doing - but turned a blind eye. Now,
however, the 'Canna-Biz Two' have been convicted of dealing. They
talk to Patrick Barkham

Behind the purple door on the cobbled streets of Alston, Cumbria, the
cooking pot was seldom off the boil. In the ordinary kitchen tucked
high in the North Pennines, thick brown liquid was poured into moulds
imported from Belgian chocolatiers. Luxurious bars of high-cocoa-fat
chocolate were wrapped and labelled and placed in jiffy bags, then
posted to all corners of the country. It would have been an
uncomplicated and charming cottage industry, but for one special
ingredient: each 150g bar contained up to 3.5g of cannabis. For six
years, its presence in the chocolate helped ease pain for more than
1,600 people with multiple sclerosis, almost 2% of all British sufferers.

It also caused the chocolate's distributors, Mark and Lezley Gibson,
to fall victim to village gossip, police raids and legal action that
has left them branded as drug dealers.

On Friday, a jury found the Gibsons, and an associate, Marcus Davies,
guilty of two counts of conspiracy to supply cannabis between 2004
and 2005. There were tears and gasps of shock in the public gallery
at Carlisle crown court when the decision was delivered.

For Lezley, who suffers from MS, the decision at least ended the
mental and physical agony of a prosecution that has dragged on for
nearly two years.

But the reverberations of the decision reach far beyond the Gibsons'
kitchen in Alston. The verdict is discomforting for those who
assumed this country had, in effect, decriminalised cannabis.

And it is painful for those MS sufferers who have suddenly found
their supply of cannabis chocolate cut off.

The Gibsons' journey to Carlisle crown court began back in the
mid-80s. Lezley was a trainee hairdresser, good enough to beat the
likes of Andrew Collinge and Nicky Clarke in apprenticeship
competitions. While the men went on to become celebrity coiffeurs,
however, the worsening pins and needles in Lezley's legs took her to
hospital in Carlisle, where she was diagnosed with MS. Treated for
10 weeks, she had two agonising lumbar punctures and was given
steroids, which caused her to grow a beard and double her weight to
more than 14 stone.

The final piece of "medical" advice before she was discharged was,
she says, to forgo butter and eat margarine instead. "I was called
in-valid," she recalls, emphasising the word. "I was disabled.

I was written off, no longer any use to anyone.

When I was diagnosed, they said I would be incontinent and in a
wheelchair within five years."

Twenty-two years on, Lezley is a slight, attractive woman with a warm
smile, and no wheelchair. For three years after her diagnosis,
however, she suffered paralysis of her right and left sides and
periodically lost the power of speech and sight in her right
eye. "This was the normal downward spiral of MS. Then I met Mark
and started using cannabis," she says. Like many young men, Mark was
a recreational user. Lezley noticed that when she smoked it with
him, she felt better.

"I read Charles Kingsley's The Water Babies when I was young and I've
always been Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby," she says. "Once I found out
that cannabis did this to me, I couldn't keep it quiet.

I wanted to help other people." The former MP Robert Kilroy-Silk
inadvertently assisted Lezley when she appeared on his show to talk
about MS in the mid-90s. There she met other MS sufferers and was
inspired to found a support group, Therapeutic Help from Cannabis (
THC ). Fortified by a growing body of scientific evidence about the
medicinal effects of cannabis on MS, Mark got involved and travelled
to universities to talk at conferences about the drug.

It was when the Gibsons began talking publicly about cannabis that
the police took an interest.

The couple were first raided in 1989: Mark spent a week on remand in
Durham prison.

They were busted again in 1995 and again in 1999. In 2000, Lezley
was acquitted of possession on the grounds of medical "necessity".

A friend and fellow MS sufferer, Biz Ivol, began producing
"Cannachoc" for a neighbour with MS. She, too, was arrested and
prosecuted. When her illness was exacerbated by legal action, the
Gibsons offered to take over the production of the chocolate in
2000. When Ivol died in 2004, they named it "Canna-Biz", in her honour.

Qualified in food hygiene, Mark began making the chocolate for about
half a dozen MS sufferers in the kitchen above his gift shop in
Alston, where he sells new age crystals and ethnic ornaments.

"It felt good to be of some use, to help society.

It was terrible to be told you're no use at 20," says Lezley. As
word spread, people wrote letters addressed to "The lady with MS,
Alston" or turned up at their door in wheelchairs. Those who found
cannabis helped reduce muscle spasm and increased bladder control
were relieved to find an alternative to giving UKP150 a week to a drug dealer.

Soon the couple were posting bars to more than 100 people a week.

As long as he didn't sell it, and only gave it to MS sufferers, Mark
believed he had a defence in law. If prosecuted, he thought he could
deploy the defence of "necessity", which allowed for an illegal act
to avert greater harm ( or, in this case, pain ). A number of
people, including founders of medical marijuana cooperatives and even
a GP, Dr Anne Biezanek, who supplied her sick daughter, have been
acquitted of possession and supply using this medical "necessity" argument.

Gibson was meticulous about how he produced and supplied
Canna-Biz. He obtained the cannabis for free from altruistic growers
and bought the chocolate ( ideally, organic Green & Black's;
otherwise Tesco's or Morrisons' own brands ). Lezley helped with the
administration and they instructed users to take no more than three
squares from the 24-square bar each day to ensure no psychoactive effects.

They never distributed it through their shop. Crucially, they never
sold it, instead suggesting a donation of between UKP1.50 and UKP5 to
cover their costs ( some MS patients would give more; many chose
never to pay anything ). And they insisted that any "patient" must
send them a doctor's letter, on headed notepaper, confirming they had
MS. Lezley says the notes showed that almost all their patients were
over 40: "It's not people looking for a cheap thrill; it's
middle-aged people who are ill."

Curtains began to twitch as Mark strolled across the street to Alston
post office every day with jiffy bags of cannabis chocolate.

Small-town gossips reckoned the 4x4-driving couple must be raking it
in. Mark was summoned to meet a senior Cumbria police officer in
2002. He was warned: open a cannabis cafe and you'll be shut
down. But police advice about their chocolate operation was more ambiguous.

Mark told the court it was suggested he should not be "quite so
blatant" about it. "He didn't tell me to stop," says Gibson. "To
this very day nobody has told us to stop."

Nevertheless, heeding police warnings, the couple reduced their media
profile and began using a regional post office instead of their local
one. Davies, an associate from Cambridgeshire, built a website for
their new not-for-profit scheme, Therapeutic Help from Cannabis for
Multiple Sclerosis ( THC4MS ). He also provided them with a PO box
address in Huntingdon; it meant the couple's home address was no
longer publicised. When their local bank refused to let them open an
account for THC4MS, Davies, who is registered disabled and grew his
own cannabis to treat his severe diabetes and epilepsy, agreed to
cash donor cheques for the Gibsons.

Internal police documents read out in court showed that Cumbria
police decided it would be "oppressive and vindictive" to mount a
surveillance operation on the couple after Lezley was acquitted in
2000. Early one morning in February last year, however, the police
knocked on the Gibsons' purple door. Bars of Canna-Biz had spilled
out of a jiffy bag at the Post Office and the police were called.

Along with Davies, they were charged with conspiracy to supply cannabis.

Legal arguments dragged on for nearly two years - destroying Gibson's
gift shop business - before their case finally opened in court two
weeks ago. Jeremy Grout-Smith, for the prosecution, argued that
while the couple were not conventional drug dealers, there was no
defence in law. "To supply cannabis, even if you believe it is doing
good, is not a defence," he said. Police found details of three bank
accounts at Davies' home into which more than UKP39,000 worth of
cheques had been paid between March 2003 and March 2005. "So this
seems to be distribution on quite a large scale and, to some extent
at least, the defendants may have benefited financially - although
the Crown does not claim this was their main motivation," he said.

The Gibsons and Davies claimed that most of the sum was the income
from other members of Davies' family.

Even if some was money from donations, they said it was all ploughed
back into the not-for-profit Canna-Biz operation. In six years they
have supplied more than 33,000 bars and calculate they have given
away cannabis with a street value of UKP500,000. The pair are not
visibly wealthy. "We're not very good 'drug dealers', are we?" says
Lezley. "If I'd sold it, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be in
Spain with the rest of 'em."

As the arguments were trotted out during nine days in court, little
indignities struck home. On one morning proceedings were delayed
because the prosecution barrister had a medical complaint.

Lezley, who struggled to walk into court and found it painful to sit
down for more than 10 minutes, was on time every day. She believes
her previous court battle advanced her MS by five years. "At the
moment I don't know if I'm able to move when I wake up," she said two
days before the verdict. "I'm not sleeping, I'm constantly in pain
across my shoulders.

I'm not taking as much cannabis as I should because I'm stuck in court."

The couple struggled to retain their composure when faced with legal
professionals who required correcting on several basic facts about
medicinal cannabis and the law. When Grout-Smith asserted that no
one had been acquitted of supplying cannabis on grounds of medical
necessity, he was put right by Mark. The judge struggled to
understand how a commercial medical cannabis treatment for MS users
in Britain, called Sativex, could be unlicensed yet still be legal in
the UK. Mark, again, was on hand to explain: in a government fudge,
it was denied a licence in Britain but for the past 12 months has
been made available on a "named patient" prescription basis.

A doctor must get a licence from the Home Office to prescribe it to
individuals. A survey by Disability Now found few patients have been
able to get it because the process is so bureaucratic and expensive.

Lezley is now licensed to carry a Sativex spray but finds smoking
cannabis better.

The spray is "very, very strong" and, she says, more likely to
incapacitate her than smoking.

The Gibsons are not the sort of campaigners who crave courtroom
publicity. But their case made public some interesting facts.

The couple kept 1,036 letters from doctors confirming patients had
MS. Of those, 65 made specific reference to cannabis chocolate,
showing that some doctors had full knowledge of what they were
writing the letter for. One MS sufferer, Helen Wallace, gave
evidence from her wheelchair in court that she had told her doctor
precisely why she needed the note. In this way, many of the letters
from the medical profession were de facto prescriptions.

Despite such support, the political climate has shifted.

The government is determined not to be seen as "soft" on the drug
since it was downgraded from class B to C. ( Paradoxically,
downgrading cannabis has damaged the Gibsons because recreational
users who once donated money or campaigned for their medical cause
have dropped away, content that they can smoke a spliff in peace. )
As well as a growing body of research showing its medicinal
applications, there is, equally, more scientific evidence linking
cannabis to mental illnesses such as psychosis and
schizophrenia. The studies agree on one thing: cannabis affects
different people in different ways.

Three months after the Gibsons were arrested, legal opinion also
turned against them. While several cannabis suppliers successfully
evoked the defence of medical "necessity", the court of appeal ruled
in May 2005 that necessity could not be a defence in six test cases
of supplying cannabis. Removing this common-law defence has, in
effect, recriminalised the medicinal use of cannabis.

Lawrence Wood, chief executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Resource
Centre charity, says the law is "an ass" and society is hypocritical
to allow possession for personal use without explaining where it can
be obtained safely. "If the government had licensed Sativex, and
made it easily available, then these people would not have needed to
supply it in this way," he says.

Since the verdict, the couple have received emails from recipients of
their chocolate. "I shall miss it very much," says one woman with
MS. "I have tried gradually using less each day but was in so much
pain I started back on a full dose. Don't know what I shall do when
this bar has finished."

Lezley is defiant. "The prosecutor told me what I did was wrong but
the law is wrong.

It's evil and cruel and totally unfair.

As a person who is ill, why am I in court?

It can't be a crime to want to be well. If it was paint stripper,
I'd take it. It's just unfortunate it's illegal.

I'm sorry that cannabis makes me well and I'm sorry I'm going to keep
taking it, because I don't want to be in a wheelchair and I don't
want to be incontinent."

The maximum penalty for the unauthorised supply of cannabis is 14
years in jail but the pair, who will be sentenced in January, have
been told they will not face a prison term. They know, however, they
must pour away the last Canna-Biz and pack up their pans. They have
no defence in law; MS sufferers will no longer receive cannabis
chocolate pain relief through the post. "I want the judge to send a
letter to all those people saying why they will no longer receive our
medication," says Lezley. "I can't do that".