Keep Looking Over Your Shoulder Sir Bernard. We’re After You!

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has upheld CLEAR’s appeal on our first complaint against Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

The complaint concerned Sir Bernard promoting misinformation and false propaganda about cannabis and engaging in politics, from which all police officers are prohibited.

This doesn’t mean that our complaint has been successful.  It means that the IPCC has rejected  The Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime’s (MOPAC) contention that the complaint was ‘fanciful‘.

This means that MOPAC must record it as a formal complaint and Hogan-Howe will now face an investigation.

IPCC Upholds CLEAR Appeal On Complaint Against Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

By stickybud

I can’t get no Sativexion
I can’t make that ‘drug’ connection
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can’t get no, I can’t get no

When I’m tokin’ on my bong
And the man comes on the radio
He’s tellin’ me that it’s wrong
But he can’t see the plan, ’cause he doesn’t know
As much about ‘herb’ as me
I can’t get no, no Sativexion
Hey hey hey, that’s what I say

I can’t get no Sativexion
I can’t get no pain correction
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can’t get no, I can’t get no

When I’m tending to my plant
And the man comes on the TV
He’s telling me loads of cant
About some bad misinformation
Designed to frighten half the nation
I can’t get no, oh no, no, no
Hey hey hey, that’s what I say

I can’t get no Sativexion
I can’t get no weed confection
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try
I can’t get no, I can’t get no

When I’m down at the GP
And he’s trying this, and he’s testing that
And he’s never ever curing me
Well, he can’t understand
That there’s Bedrocan
To make us all pain-free
I can’t get no, oh no, no, no
Hey hey hey, that’s what I say

I can’t get no, I can’t get no
I can’t get no, no Sativexion
No Sativexion, no Sativexion

(With apologies to the Groaning Bones)

(Can’t Get No) Sativexion - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Given the accelerating pace of change in the USA, imminent radical change in Latin America and the fact that Britain now has one of the most backward drugs policies in the world, what can we do to advance the cause of cannabis law reform?

Peter Reynolds

Cannabis is, of course, the big drugs policy issue although it is generally lumped in with discussion about addictive, dangerous drugs and consequently little rational debate takes place.  It is self-evident that our 300,000 problematic users of opiates and crack would be better dealt with as patients rather than criminals. It would stop them perpetrating 70% of all acquisitive crime.

It is equally self-evident that a tax and regulate policy on cannabis, MDMA and other relatively harmless substances would reduce harm, protect children and make a huge contribution to our economy. This, however, wouldn’t suit the alcohol industry which as it spends £800 million on advertising each year brings us back round in a self-reinforcing circle to the Fleet Street mafia, the real enemies of reform and progress in Britain on all political issues.

Then there’s the unlawful monopoly of medicinal cannabis granted to GW Pharmaceuticals which has been growing cannabis for commercial gain under an unlawful licence for 10 years (The Home Secretary retrospectively legalised it last month). The Home Office is engaged in a calculated deception falsely to distinguish Sativex from cannabis.

Propping up all this corruption up are weak, cowardly and dishonest politicians of all parties.

Successive British governments have caused more harm than good with their useless and incompetent drug policies for years. Even today they claim it’s all going so wonderfully well. Last week we had the appalling spectacle of the Liberal Democrat drugs minister, Jeremy Browne, saying he is “proud” of British drugs policy.  This despite the fact that he is presiding over a Tory drugs policy which is diametrically opposed to his own party’s.  Surely this is self-interest and career ambition trumping integrity yet again?  This seems to be standard practice for today’s career politicians.

The HASC drugs inquiry whimpered its way to supporting the momentum towards reform but it did so under the manipulation of arch-schemer Keith Vaz, who preferred the company of celebrities and extremist prohibitionist opinion to evidence and addressing real public concerns.  In the written submissions to the inquiry, one question dominated all others – the need for regulated access to medicinal cannabis.  The committee completely ignored this issue.  Only after the inquiry was over did Vaz pass the buck to the Department of Health which, in time honoured tradition, promptly passed it back to the Home Office.

The committee’s report, ‘Breaking The Cycle’, is to be debated on 6th June in parliament and I plan to be there, though I am not optimistic about any substantive result.

The cannabis campaign in Britain has made considerable progress in the last two or three years.  The relaunch of  the LCA as CLEAR started it all and support has become more widespread and organised ever since.  Many cannabis social clubs have been formed and there are new organisations, all working in a professional way to a far higher standard than before. This is all excellent news and although we don’t all see eye to eye, the fact is there is far more good work going on now than there was pre-2011.

No one can disagree with the high minded principle that ending cannabis prohibition is a human rights issue but blind and stubborn adherence to this idea obstructs reform.  Civil disobedience is counterproductive and sets cannabis users outside the mainstream which is where we need to be.  Colorado and Washington have not achieved reform because of protests and rallies but despite them. What has achieved change has been the patient, detailed drafting of bills, an organised campaign and lobbying of voters.  The people on the marches were always going to vote for reform.  Such events are merely preaching to the choir.

Pragmatism is what is needed.  Small steps in reducing penalties, minimising enforcement and educating public opinion must be the way forward.

Whatever we do in Britain will be as nothing compared to the effect of more states legalising in the US. For that reason I believe we need to be very focused on how we use our time and resources. General demands or appeals for change just fall on deaf ears. Marches and rallies achieve nothing. We need to engage with government and policy makers. That is how we can promote change.

I believe the Sativex issue has the potential to gain most traction here. That the government has now re-scheduled it to schedule 4 while continuing to claim that cannabis has ‘no medicinal value‘ is revealing its present policy to be completely absurd. As you may have read, we have secured an opportunity to take a delegation of 12 medicinal cannabis users to parliament to meet some senior figures in home affairs and health. This is really good progress and could make a big difference. The idea is to try and enable access to Bedrocan for medicinal users either by obtaining personal import licences or by enabling pharmacists to obtain licences to import and dispense.

As highlighted in the Sunday Times last week, CLEAR is by far the largest and most visible player in the British cannabis campaign.  We will make progress through initiatives such as the parliamentary delegation,  judicial reviews of Home Office decisions, educating public opinion and working with a number of police and crime commissioners who are interested in reform. We are also assembling a consortium of donors to fund a billboard advertising campaign.

The way forward is responsible engagement with those who can make change happen.  We must leave behind the association with badly behaved young people protesting by smoking joints in front of police officers, the videos that glorify intoxication, the mindless belief that we can ‘overgrow the government’ or if enough of us smoke a joint in public somehow we will prevail.

Last month we decided to restrict access to our website and Facebook page to adults only. Although we recognise that under 18s do use cannabis, it definitely works against the campaign for responsible law reform. The recent media coverage of Hyde Park 420 has produced something of a backlash and although, as usual, it was inaccurate and exaggerated, we must be clear that we advocate a system of regulation where only adults can have access to cannabis unless prescribed by a doctor.

Of course, the worry is that we are cutting off teenagers from access to reliable and trustworthy information about cannabis. We intend to set up a young people’s advice service and we’re planning how to do that within our resources.

Next weekend, the CLEAR executive committee meets to finalise a review of our policy and strategy and in September we will hold a conference for members.  My term of office as leader expires in February 2014 so before the end of this year there will be a leadership election.

Please become a member of CLEAR.  It only costs £10.00 per annum or £5.00 if you’re a student, a pensioner or on benefits.  It gives you the opportunity to influence policy and provides the funding we need to run the campaign.  It is the CLEAR way forward for those who wish to make a difference in cannabis law reform in Britain.

Which Way Forward For The British Cannabis Campaign? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

“…a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics.“ Police Regulations 2003, schedule 1

The Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has rejected my second complaint against the Commissioner of the Metropolis, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.  See here for details.

Remarkably, the line it has taken this time is that my complaint is “repetitive“.  It seems that as far as police misconduct goes, repeat offences don’t count.  Hogan-Howe engaged in politics about cannabis on two separate and distinct occasions but because I’ve already complained about the first, I can’t complain about the second!  The only things that the two occasions had in common was that the statements he made were equally misleading and both were clear breaches of Police Regulations.

I have therefore submitted a second appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Meanwhile, in Gravesend, Kent, a junior police officer has been up to the same thing.  Detective Constable Roger Harris came out with a statement Dr Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, would have been proud of:

“Cannabis use has a detrimental effect on its users and on society in general.”

Source: This is Local London

I have complained to the Kent Police professional standards department, making the following points:

More Police Misconduct On Cannabis. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

John W. Huffmann

John W. Huffman, the ‘JWH’ behind many synthetic cannabinoids, notably JWH-018, says we should consider legalising cannabis as a way to counter the problems with synthetic cannabinoids. “The synthetics are harmful, they’re dangerous,” he says, “and marijuana is not really dangerous.”

He has a doctor friend in California who was unaware of the synthetic compounds because in his state it’s so easy to get marijuana (medical marijuana is legal in California). “That’s what made me come to the conclusion that legalising marijuana is probably the best thing we could do – and tax it, so the government could make more money.”

Now 79 years old and retired, John W Huffman enjoys a quiet lifestyle in the mountains of North Carolina, with his wife, a university professor. He’s quick to laughter, self-deprecating at every turn, and he retains the sharp, analytical mind that helped him excel in a long and distinguished career as a research scientist.

Huffman invented or co-invented more than 450 chemical compounds that mimic the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. The compounds – which bear his initials – are the key ingredients in cannabis alternatives such as Kronic, K2 and Spice. Huffman, however, calls these compounds flat out dangerous.

“It’s like playing Russian roulette,” he says, “because you just don’t know what’s going to happen.”

He also doesn’t hide his contempt for the people who seek to make a profit from the likes of Spice.

“There are people on this earth who will do anything to make money, no matter what harm it does to other people,” he says. “These people are morally off base, completely.”

“These people, they know it is known that these things are harmful. These people are just like drug pushers who push cocaine and crystal meth and all the other nasty compounds.”

Huffman, who, in July, retired from his job as a professor of organic chemistry at South Carolina’s Clemson University and holds a PhD from Harvard, has been one of the few informed voices speaking out against the dangers of what are still largely unknown quantities. Only a small number of cannabinoid experts have stepped forward to educate the public on the ramifications of using the drugs.

That’s partly because there are few people qualified to speak about synthetic cannabinoids and little money to fund their work. In the US, Huffman is one of only “four or five” chemists who have made the compounds – three of whom are over 70 years old.

Huffman, who trained under Nobel Prize-winning chemist Professor Robert Burns Woodward, got involved in cannabinoid research in 1984, when he was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to synthesise THC carboxylic acid, which was used as a standard for checking marijuana use. At the time, the institute was paying US$50,000 a gram.

Later, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society, Huffman learned that NIDA wouldn’t fund synthetic organic chemistry – it would only fund drug development and receptor interactions (i.e. how compounds react with particular receptors in the brain). He had no experience in either field, but thought receptor interactions sounded more fun than drug development, and so, after three attempts, he managed to renew his grant. He became so interested in cannabinoid receptors that he worked in the field continuously until July this year.

Huffman’s research ultimately led to the development of more than 450 chemical compounds that “mimic THC and then some”. One of the most potent and easiest to make is JWH-018, which is 10 times as potent as THC and is the key ingredient in Spice.

“If you just look at the affinity for the receptor, this stuff is about 10 times as potent for the CB1 receptor as THC,” says Huffman. The brain’s CB1 receptor is linked to the central nervous system. In other words, JWH-018 is likely to be much more effective at getting you ‘high’ than plain old THC.

Huffman knows enough about the drugs to say bluntly: “These are dangerous compounds and should not be used.”

As a kind of unwilling figurehead for these synthetic compounds, he has had more than his fair share of feedback. He’s had a few people blame him for the development of the drugs – including in an unpleasant interview on Russian TV – but he’s actually had more people thank him for it. Wannabe manufacturers often email him expressing their admiration and asking for advice. He doesn’t answer them. The emails that make him most sad, however, are from parents whose teenage sons or daughters have used the drugs and suffered severe psychological problems.

“I never had a really good response to any of those,” he says. “There was one email I got from a woman whose nephew had smoked K2 or Spice and committed suicide. They are really, really nasty compounds.”

And he should know.  Real cannabis is safer.

This article was adapted from a piece by Hamish McKenzie, originally published on the website of the New Zealand Drug Foundation.

The Truth About ‘Spice’ And Cannabis Substitutes From The Man Who Invented Them. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

How can we create change?  What will make a difference?

Why can’t we make the sort of progress that has been seen in Washington and Colorado?

Cannabis prohibition is causing massive harm and waste in Britain.

Most other European countries have less strict policies.  We all know about Holland.  In Belgium you’re allowed to grow one plant.  In Italy you can ‘grow a few plants on your balcony‘.  In the Czech Republic you’re permitted to possess – without fear of prosecution – up to five grams of cannabis (and,  if you want to, 40 magic mushrooms, five peyote plants, five tabs of LSD, four hits of ecstasy, two grams of speed, one and a half grams of heroin, five coca plants and a gram of coke!)

What holds us back in Britain?

In fact, the campaign has made considerable progress in the last two or three years.  The relaunch of  the LCA as CLEAR started it all and support has become more widespread and organised ever since.  Many cannabis social clubs have been formed and there are new organisations, all working in a professional way to a far higher standard than before. This is all excellent news and although we don’t all see eye to eye, the fact is there is far more good work going on now than there was pre-2011.

Britain is a different and particularly difficult place to achieve  reform.  Partly it’s our media, particularly our newspapers, and we do tend to follow the  US more than the rest of Europe.  That’s why, whatever we do here, it will be as nothing compared to the effect of more states legalising in the US.  That’s what will ultimately change things here.

Now that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.  What it does mean is we have to be smart and very focused on what has a real effect  .

Colorado and Washington have achieved change because of local democracy and that’s why America will lead the way. Britain, the home of modern democracy, has sadly succumbed to the party whip system and to that ever present fear of and subjugation by the Fleet Street mafia.  The Daily Mail has run cannabis policy in Britain for the last 20 years.

The natural inclination is to protest but this is not what has worked.  Colorado and Washington have not succeeded because of large gatherings or marches. What has achieved change has been the patient, detailed drafting of bills, an organised campaign and lobbying of voters.  The people on the marches were always going to vote our way.  Such work is merely preaching to the choir.

Success has been achieved through concentrated, diligent and determined work, not through civil disobedience.

Today’s Global Marijuana March, Million Marijuana March or whatever else we call it is a token of our protest.  It’s cannabis! The whole world is waking up, once again, to the fact that prohibition is a great, immoral evil.

Save the children.  End prohibition.

What we need to do now is the work, the detail, the negotiation, the settlement. We are almost there.

How Can the Cannabis Campaign Succeed In Britain? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Prof. Les Iversen

Prof. Tim Kirkham

Dr Trevor Turner

Prof Glyn Lewis

Dr Clare Gerada

Prof. David Nutt

Prof Terrie Moffitt

What The Experts Say About Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Existing users aged under 18 will be automatically deleted by Facebook.  We anticipate this will lose us around 6% of our ‘likes’ and take us back down below 20,000 in total.  Nevertheless, after careful consideration, the executive committee has agreed that this is the responsible action to take.

Visitors to the website will shortly be asked to confirm their date of birth.  This will be a one time only requirement and your computer will use cookies to remember your answer.

New Age Restrictions On CLEAR Facebook Page and Website - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Hyde Park, 20th April 2013

The Hyde Park 420 event on 20th April 2013 was not a success for the British cannabis campaign.  It may have been an enjoyable social event for some but its effect has been to associate the legitimate campaign for cannabis law reform with the spectacle of hundreds of children smoking weed in public.

This is not the way to advance our cause and those responsible for organising and promoting children and teenagers to participate have shot themselves in the foot.  Responsible adult users and particularly those who need cannabis as medicine have been seriously set back by this event.

It’s not surprising that the media coverage was largely negative.  Estimates of attendance range from a few hundred to 10,000.  Neither is true.  I don’t know but from the photographs and having attended other events in the same location I would guess at around 5,000.  That’s not the point though. What it has done is present the British cannabis campaign as irresponsible and juvenile.  That makes it all the more difficult to complain about the media stories and, more importantly, to achieve positive, supportive  coverage.

Nevertheless, CLEAR submitted formal complaints to the BBC about its website article and about Mary Brett’s appearance on Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz show.  We have also made a PCC complaint about the Daily Mail’s coverage.

Website complaint

This article is unbalanced and gives credence and space to wildly inaccurate, sensationalist and scaremongering comments from Mary Brett. No counterbalancing information is given.

Cannabis cannot by any scientific or medical evidence be described as ’dangerous’. It is a generally benign substance although it does offer some potential for harm, only if used by children. This is clearly shown by the vast amount of published, peer reviewed evidence on the subject. Compared to almost any other substance it is far, far safer – much safer than aspirin according to the government’s chief drugs advisor, Prof Leslie Iversen.

‘Skunk’ is a specific strain of cannabis. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the market, not 80%. It is the same substance as was around in the sixties and seventies and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

To describe any strain of cannabis as ‘horrific’ is absurd and has no basis in science, medicine or any evidence. That the BBC gives Ms Brett licence to distribute her false, misleading propaganda is a disgrace.

 Radio London complaint

The opportunity given to Mary Brett to advance a line of argument that is disproven by all published research was disgraceful.

Her casual use of the word skunk as a derogatory and scaremongering term was inaccurate and misleading. Skunk is a single strain of cannabis which accounts for a fraction of a percent of the cannabis used in the UK.

The THC percentage figures given by Ms Brett were inaccurate. The allegation that cannabis “dumbs the brain down” is false and has no basis in evidence. In fact, cannabis promotes neurogenesis in the hippocampus and has been used for millennia by artists and writers as an aid to creativity.

It was inaccurate to claim that all people in Hyde Park were teenagers. There were people of all ages, many of retirement age and many who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. There is no scientific basis for describing cannabis as dangerous. Compared to all other drugs, even aspirin, it is far less harmful. Evidence proves that in the UK alcohol is six times more likely to be associated with mental health problems than cannabis.

Ms Brett was also allowed to misrepresent two studies concerning the Lambeth cannabis experiment in the same way as recently published in the press which has been challenged by the authors of the studies and are subject to PCC complaints. It is absolutely false to state that more ‘kids’ are in treatment for cannabis than for alcohol. Ms Brett is a misguided promoter of false science and has no place on the BBC.

We have yet to receive a response concerning Radio London but Laura Ellis from the BBC News website has replied:

I have looked again at the story and I believe it is a balanced and factual account of the event – a mass gathering at which hundreds of people were breaking the law as it currently stands.

We feature a range of comments, including a tweet from the London Cannabis Club. There are also clear links to a picture gallery of the global marijuana march, which includes information about the potential medicinal aspect of cannabis, as well as an article with the headline ‘Cannabis makes pain more bearable’.

Best regards, and thanks for your feedback which is much appreciated.

We’re not leaving it there though!

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am dismayed at your response to my complaint which fails to address the issues I raised at all.

As for your suggestion that it is a “balanced” account of the event, that is preposterous and just does not stand up to analysis.

Your response and indeed the article itself is predicated on your description that it was “a mass gathering at which hundreds of people were breaking the law as it currently stands”.

Is that how you would have covered a protest about the ‘bedroom tax’ or changes to planning law? Of course not. You would have looked at the issues involved, not just resorted to prejudice and dismissal of widespread public concern about the injustice of the present laws against cannabis.

I am afraid that your response really shines a light on gross bias and distortion of this story in the BBC. A recent Ipsos MORI poll shows 53% of the British public want cannabis legalised or decriminalised: http://transform-drugs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/new-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-53-of-gb.html

What is truly appaling though, which you have completely overlooked and is in brazen defiance of the requirement on the BBC to be balanced is your unchallenged repetition of Mary Brett’s falsehood and misrepresentation of the scientific evidence about cannabis.

In my original complaint I referenced specific inaccuracies but you have simply ignored them. I am afraid your blandishments cut no ice. Such misleading, inaccurate and prejudiced coverage is what we expect from the Daily Mail but not from our national broadcaster which is paid for out of public money.

Please address my complaint properly. If you will not publish a prominent correction and apology and re-balance your coverage, I fully intend to take this to the Editorial Complaints Unit.

BBC Responds To CLEAR Complaints On Cannabis Coverage - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Mary Brett

Meet Mary Brett in person and she’s your granny. She’s a kindly lady whose motives are beyond doubt. As a biology teacher at a very posh boys grammar school in leafy Buckinghamshire she evidently cared deeply for the welfare of her pupils. Sadly, this genuine concern has turned her into a drug warrior and propagandist of the most dangerous kind. Using the vehicle of a registered charity, Cannabis Skunk Sense,  she is in the business of misinforming and scaremongering about cannabis.  By providing ‘secretarial services’ for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cannabis and Children she has managed to win influence in parliament. She is a key player in maintaining the present hugely damaging, costly and oppressive policy on cannabis.

Mary and her colleague Lucy Dawes have been busy this week, largely in response to the Hyde Park 420 event. They are, of course, the favourite source of a scary quote for the Daily Mail and they’ve been relentessly pushing the myth of ‘skunk’, the lie that cannabis is dangerous, even “horrific“.

At CLEAR we share her concern about the very large number of children seen smoking cannabis in Hyde Park but the way to deal with this is not to threaten them with jail and frighten them with bad science. They’re clever and well informed enough to know when they hear propaganda. The trouble is that makes them dismiss any health warnings about cannabis and for young people it is important to be careful.

Cannabis Skunk Sense is the charity of which Ms Brett is founder and trustee. There’s a technical term for the way in which her charity operates and that is that it’s a ‘sham’. It’s not genuine because charities are prohibited from taking part in politics and that’s exactly what Cannabis Skunk Sense does.  It campaigns ruthlessly with bad and discredited science and whips up fear and hatred of cannabis users with inflammatory speakers such as Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. MPs are misinformed, misled and blinded with bad science.

Mary is wedded to the discredited COMT gene theory, disproven many times over, that suggests 25% of those who use cannabis will become psychotic. It is the work of Professor Sir Robin Murray who, despite his titles, is notorious for unscientific language and is disgraced by his propaganda around the term ‘skunk’. He even purports to have authored scientific studies on the subject but when you actually read them they’re about ‘high potency cannabis’ with widely varying THC content, no controls and very little scientific rigour. They have nothing to do with the indica dominant strain of skunk which represents a tiny proportion of the cannabis available in Britain. It’s a term deliberately intended to cause fear and panic amongst the uninformed and that, of course, is the reason that it’s used in the title of Mary’s campaign group.

One day, those that have been misled by Mary and her colleagues will realise that the only effective way to reduce the harms around cannabis is to take the market out of the hands of criminals and introduce responsible regulation to ensure quality, balanced cannabinoid content and age restrictions on sales. That Britain has one of the lowest ages at first use of cannabis in the world is the best indicator of what a disastrous policy we follow. Mary would have us move even further in that direction. This is why she’s dangerous, dangerous to our children, our society and to truth.

Cannabis Skunk Sense: Publisher of Bad Science And Non-Sense - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

In order to protect patient confidentiality and against the sort of sabotage which is so often seen in the cannabis campaign, we are not releasing details of who we are meeting or when.  Suffice to say that this breakthrough has been achieved by many months of behind the scenes work, meetings with MPs, doctors and the courageous efforts of several CLEAR members.

The focus is to permit medicinal users access to the products of Bedrocan, the Dutch government’s official producer of medicinal cannabis.  We now have written confirmation from both the Department of Health and the Home Office that doctors are fully entitled to write prescriptions for Bedrocan products, just as they are for any other unlicensed medicine.

The next stage is to obtain an import licence from the Home Office, either a personal import licence for each individual or a licence for a pharmacist to import and dispense.  The recent re-scheduling of Sativex makes our case for obtaining these licences much stronger.

We are not there yet but we are now closer than we have ever been to enabling legal access to medicinal cannabis.  The delegation will be meeting face to face with people who can make this happen.

We now have to select the members of the delegation.  This is an important task.  We need a broad range of conditions for which there is good evidence that cannabis helps.  We also need the right people who can put their case across in a polite and convincing manner.

We also have a BBC documentary producer with whom we have been working for a few months concerning a programme to be broadcast in the autumn.  This visit to parliament could form an important part of the programme.

If you are interested in being considered as a member of the delegation, please email me with a concise description of yourself, your condition and your history of medicinal cannabis use: peterreynolds@clear-uk.org

Medicinal Cannabis Users – Parliamentary Delegation - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dr Gary Potter

The claim concerned statements published on the GCCRC website by Chris Bovey, Alun Buffry and others involved in the campaign of hatred and abuse against CLEAR and its members. Dr Potter has published an apology on the GCCRC website which describes the statements as “derogatory“, “without evidence” and “defamatory“.

The apology can be seen in full here.

Further terms of the settlement are confidential.

Peter Reynolds, leader of CLEAR, said:

“This is the first victory in the fight back against the smear campaign directed at CLEAR.  Legal action continues against others involved. I’m really proud of the way that my colleagues on the executive and our members have stayed true in the face of the most disgusting lies and false allegations. Throughout some very difficult times, we have remained focused on our efforts to end the prohibition of cannabis, most urgently for those who need it as medicine.”

Dr Gary Potter Of London South Bank University Apologises To CLEAR. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. Drug War Politician.

Not content with calling my first complaint ‘fanciful‘ when I presented documentary evidence of misconduct  by Britain’s most senior police office, the Mayor’s office has now tried to suppress my further complaint of a repeat offence.

In normal circumstances, once a complaint has been submitted,  it is proper to regard its progress as confidential until a final determination is made.  However, there is clearly an intention here not to deal with my legitimate complaints seriously.  So, until the Mayor’s office starts behaving responsibly and properly investigating the overwhelming evidence of misconduct I have presented, we will continue this in public.

See the first complaint here.

See the second complaint here.

Dear Mr Reynolds,

Mayor’s Office Attempts Cover-Up Of Hogan-Howe Misconduct. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The new regulations concerning Sativex came into force today.

Put simply, Sativex has been moved into schedule 4 of the  Misuse of Drugs Regulations so it can now be dealt with by doctors, pharmacists and patients in the same way and with the same restrictions as diazepam (Valium).

If you’ve been following CLEAR’s work on the Sativex scandal you’ll understand that what is really going on here is a corrupt use of ministerial orders falsely to distinguish Sativex from cannabis and protect GW Pharmaceutical’s unlawful monopoly.

Catch up in full by the articles below.  The very latest news is that CLEAR is now working with leading counsel to prepare an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the re-scheduling.  Watch this space!

Sativex Scandal Demands Judicial Review, 1st April 2013

The Sativex Scandal Deepens. Corruption And Dishonesty At The Home Office, 14th February 2013

Home Office Deception On Medicinal Cannabis, 13th February 2013

Sativex Update - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Keep Looking Over Your Shoulder Sir Bernard. We’re After You!

It will be no surprise that The Mayor’s Office of Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has rejected my complaint against the Commissioner of the Metropolis, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

See the original complaint here: Britain’s Most Senior Police Officer Or A ‘Drug War’ Politician?

There’s no doubt that Sir Bernard was involving himself in politics when he rambled on about skunk back in January and that is forbidden by police regulations. I didn’t expect MOPAC to agree.  What does surprise me though is its description of my complaint as ‘fanciful‘.  I rather think it’s fanciful of Sir Bernard to think he can get away with it!

I have therefore submitted an appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). You can be certain that we shall pursue it as hard as we possibly can.

But Sir Bernard has been at it again!

This time, in his Operation Hawk, designed to persecute cannabis users and harvest the low-hanging fruit which some coppers prefer rather than dealing with violence and organised crime.  He’s now falsifying scientific evidence and making up stories to support his deep-seated prejudice and hatred of cannabis users.

I have submitted a further complaint to MOPAC.

—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: Jason Collins
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:20 PM
Subject: Further complaint against Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe

Dear Mr Collins,

Thank you for your email of 13th March 2013.

I reject in the strongest possible terms MOPAC’s description of my complaint as “fanciful“. I consider this to be an abusive and vexatious response to an extremely serious complaint.

I can confirm that an appeal has been filed with the IPCC.

Regrettably, I see that Sir Bernard has repeated his misconduct in further false and misleading statements and politicking in the Evening Standard on 27th March 2013. I therefore set out a further complaint below in similar form.

COMPLAINT

My complaint concerns statements made by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, and published in the Evening Standard of 27th March 2013. His conduct amounts to politicking and misleading the public and is in breach of police regulations. The article is available online: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-seize-100-drugs-suspects-but-not-on-bernard-hoganhowes-raid-8551542.html

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of 42-46, Bethel Street, Norwich, NR2 1NR. For the purposes of correspondence, please contact me via email.

I am a victim of misconduct by Hogan-Howe which has caused me distress at his misuse of his office to promote myth, prejudice and propaganda about cannabis and hatred of cannabis users as a social group. I am also acting on behalf of more than 20,000 registered supporters of CLEAR who are victims of Hogan-Howe’s misconduct for the same reasons, particularly those who need cannabis as medicine for the treatment of conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia, spinal injury, epilepsy and chronic pain.

Hogan-Howe is reported as saying:

1. “If kids take it (cannabis) under the age of 16, they are six times more likely to develop psychotic behaviour in later life.”

2. “People are stealing to pay for it.”

3. “This stuff can make people violent, particularly if it is combined with alcohol.”

These are false, inaccurate and misleading statements which attempt to deceive the public that Hogan-Howe is an expert in the subject and that the public can rely on the accuracy and veracity of what he says. They seek to support the failed government policy of prohibition of cannabis and demonstrate quite clearly that Hogan-Howe is engaging in politics from which police officers are prohibited under schedule 1 of the Police Regulations 2003.

In making these statements, Hogan-Howe has acted dishonestly, without integrity, fairness and impartiality. He has abused his authority by making statements which, as the UK’s most senior police officer, he knows that the public are likely to believe without question. He has also acted in a way that discredits the police service and will undermine public confidence.

It is clear from these and many previous statements that Hogan-Howe harbours a deep seated prejudice against cannabis users which goes far beyond any reasonable or proportionate response to the fact that, presently, its possession or cultivation is prohibited. He exhibits an extraordinary determination repeatedly to misinform, mislead, exaggerate, sensationalise and falsify information about cannabis. This cannot be justified by his duty to enforce the present law.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that taking cannabis under the age of 16 produces a six-fold increase in the risk of developing psychotic behaviour in later life. The greatest increase in risk suggested by any study is four-fold so, at best, Hogan-Howe is cherry picking a single study and then exaggerating and falsifying its results. Hogan-Howe is neither a scientist nor a doctor and he is misleading the public about a subject which he has no legitimate place to comment on.

What all the evidence does show is that children are the only group at any significant risk of any harm from cannabis. Therefore, the best way to protect children would be to take control of the £6 billion cannabis market out of the hands of criminals and control and regulate it accordingly. However, as a police officer, Hogan-Howe has a vested interest in the cannabis market remaining in the hands of criminals as this increases crime and provides employment for him and his colleagues. It is therefore completely improper for him to be commenting on the subject.

2. There is no evidence that people are stealing to pay for cannabis. Hogan-Howe might be able to advance a few anecdotes to support this claim but there is no credible evidence to suggest that cannabis is a cause of acquisitive crime any more than any other commodity for which there is a huge public demand. In contrast, there is of course a great deal of evidence to show that people do steal in order to pay for alcohol, heroin, cocaine and other addictive and dangerous drugs.

In its last report on cannabis, the government’s appointed team of experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) stated:

“The evidence available to the Council does not suggest that cannabis use is a substantial cause of acquisitive crime (Section 9.3)”

Cannabis: Classification and Public Health, 12.13, ACMD 2008

No further evidence has been published since on this subject which could cause any reasonable person to take a different view. In fact, acquisitive crime has decreased and so has cannabis use. .

This is false, misleading and blatant politicking by Hogan-Howe, intended to promote hatred of cannabis users as a social group.

3. There is no evidence at all that use of cannabis makes people violent. Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case with dozens of studies showing that it produces a sedative or tranquilising effect. There is some evidence to show that people involved in illegal drug markets have a propensity to violence but there is no link to the use of cannabis.

There is of course a large quantity of evidence showing that alcohol induces violent behaviour.

The ACMD states:

“Anti-social behaviour is an unlikely consequence of the known psychological effects of cannabis. In the opinion of experts on the Council, anti-social behaviour is probably largely exacerbated by alcohol”

Cannabis: Classification and Public Health, 12.14, ACMD 2008

I accept that Hogan-Howe has a duty to uphold the law as it presently stands, It is however entirely improper for him to engage in politicking, scaremongering, the promotion of myth, prejudice and propaganda. The public are likely to be alarmed by his words which are clearly intended to cause fear, consternation and hatred of cannabis users as a social group.

He is in breach of schedule 1 of the Police Regulations 2003 which states:

“A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics.“

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

Recidivist Hogan-Howe Breaches Police Regulations Again. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party