—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: complaints@pcc.org.uk
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:48 PM
Subject: Complaint against The Daily Telegraph, issue dated 12th June 2013

Dear Sirs,

“Mental health issues linked to cannabis increase by half in four years”, The Daily Telegraph, 12-06-13

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10116830/Mental-health-issues-linked-to-cannabis-increase-by-half-in-four-years.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 P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

1. The article breaches clause 1.i) of the code in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. The article quotes extensively from Mary Brett, trustee of Cannabis Skunk Sense, and so I recognise that it is intended to be partial, it is clearly unbalanced and the newspaper is entitled to take this position. What it is not entitled to do is to publish comment or opinion which is based on inaccurate, distorted or misleading information.

4. The article is predicated on the assertion as stated in the headline that hospital admissions have increased by half in four years. This is not inaccurate but it is grossly and deliberately misleading. The newspaper has ‘cherry picked’ the period over which it makes this calculation. The newspaper describes the information as coming from “Figures released to MPs…”. In fact, the figures were released to shadow health minister Diane Abbott in response to a parliamentary question. Over the whole period for which the answer to the question was given, the increase in admissions is just 6%.

5. The article states that the admissions figures are “for mental or behavioural issues due to cannabis”. This is inaccurate. The figures relate to the use of cannabinoids so also include admissions for synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) some of which are called ‘legal highs’ . These are generally recognised to be more harmful than cannabis and have become far more prevalent in recent years.

6. The article then quotes Ms Brett providing false information on THC content. She uses the figures from the 2008 Home Office Potency Study showing THC content between 16.2% and 46%. However she then says “Old fashioned 60 to 70s cannabis had around 1-2 per cent THC” whereas the study says that 5% was typical of values reported by others over many years. (Copy of study attached)

7. Ms Brett is also quoted as saying “Skunk…accounts for about 80 per cent of the UK market”. This is inaccurate. Skunk is used as a term to demonise cannabis and cannabis users because of the other connotations of the word. It is inaccurate and misleading to use it unless you are referring to the specific cannabis strain known as skunk. There are hundreds of other strains. Skunk accounts for less than 1% of the cannabis on sale in Britain.

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

PCC Complaint. The Daily Telegraph, 12th June 2013 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

So, at the risk of starting world war three let’s have a go at answering this question once and for all, but it’s not as easy as you might think and the first reason for that is we are not not consistent in these things.

First of all of course cannabis is the name of a plant and the plant produces active chemicals – the things we call we call “drugs”. Now tobacco isn’t generally thought of as a drug, yet as we know it contains the drug nicotine, but khat is generally perceived as a drug (in this country at least) because it contains the stimulant cathinone. Now it gets muddy because to the people who traditionally use Khat it’s just a plant they chew to help them get through the day, the “drug” connotation is something we (our governments) in the west have put on it in recent years and of course the same is true for cannabis. So why hasn’t that happened with tobacco? Probably the opposite is true, tobacco was familiar to the people who wrote the drug laws. What we’re seeing here is the use of a word which has its roots in cultural norms imposed by laws, which is not a very good start.

So the “no” camp have round one on balance; cannabis, like khat or tobacco is a plant and had it not been for the drugs laws it would possibly never have had the “drug” label attached to it. But that isn’t quite true.

Cannabis is popular with the people who use it for one simple reason – it gets them stoned when they smoke or eat it. So the very people who are often the most vocal in refusing to accept the drug label for cannabis are the most appreciative of its drug effects. Tobacco of course doesn’t get you stoned and indeed doesn’t seem to “do” anything, although as we now know it releases a drug – nicotine – which does produce significant effects on the brain.

So now might be a good time to find a definition of what makes a drug: The Oxford Dictionary defines a drug as:

A medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body:

* a substance taken for its narcotic or stimulant effects, often illegally:

Which is a useless definition because that obviously includes food. The free dictionary defines a drug as

1 a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

Free dictionary is American, but even so defining a substance as a drug because the US government says it is will not win a debate such as we’re having. A chemical that affects the CNS is also very vague and includes many things which we don’t think of as drugs, some of which lead to much more than just changes.

The UN Office Of Drug Control the UNODC doesn’t help much either, while accepting the medicial definition of drug as being a substance with the potential to prevent or cure disease or enhance physical or mental welfare it also tries a definition close to the Oxford version above

any chemical agent that alters the biochemical or physiological processes of tissues or organisms.

which again of course includes foods. Worse it also creates its own definition:

In the context of international drug control, “drug” means any of the substances listed in Schedule I and II of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, whether natural or synthetic.

Wikipedia has a better go at a definition

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.

“performance enhancing or other effects” is rather vague, but it’s no worse than the other definitions and does try to exclude food, but presumably would include vitamins…

This isn’t as easy as it should be, considering we have such draconian laws aimed at drugs and such entrenched ideas about them.

About.com chemistry offers perhaps the best definition, if a little strangled by bad proof reading:

A drug is a chemical that has medicinal, performance-enhancing or intoxicating effects when introduced into the body of a human or other animal. Substances which are foods are not considered to be drugs, although active ingredients from foods make be purified (sic) for use as drugs. Also, some chemicals used as drugs are identical to substances made in the body (e.g., insulin, testosterone). The chemical is considered a drug only if it is introduced into the body from the outside, such as by ingestion, injection or topical application.

So that seems the best definition to go by, but as we’ve seen it’s not universally understood and it’s distorted by the definition imposed by the UN and governments which has arbitrarily created it’s own list based on, well, no more than opinion. So:

Under the law, cannabis is a drug, but only because politicians have decided it is.

Law reform campaigners and many cannabis evangelists point out that it is an effective medicine, so on that definition it is also a drug. Here it’s important to mention a big complication which we’ll come back to, which is that cannabis, rather than the individual components within it – is a medicine. Refined extracts also have great medical potential, but so does the whole plant.

But what about the chemical introduced to the body which affects the CNS definition?

About now someone will suggest a solution: Cannabis isn’t a drug, it’s a plant that contains a drug (THC) and this makes sense. Tobacco isn’t a drug but nicotine is, it sounds like the obvious answer. Sadly though, that’s not good enough either.

The cannabis experience isn’t the product of the one THC drug. If you were to take a dose of pure THC the effect is, by all accounts, not nice at all.

BBC 3 shows the effects of pure THC compared with THC and CBD

Cannabis is pretty unique in that it produces two active chemicals, THC and CBD which are almost direct opposites in many respects. THC is the psychoactive chemical long associated with cannabis, CBD is far more subtle and only recently understood to have an important effect on the user. CBD can be thought of as a “balance” to THC and is a very important constituent. This is the rub: The cannabis drug effect is the combined effect of all the active chemicals the plant produces – THC and CBD are the most important but there are a number of other, minor compounds at work to produce the overall cannabis experience. In short, the “cannabis drug” is not THC, it’s everything all at once. This is why different strains of cannabis have such different effects on the user, indeed it may well be true that some strains are harmful for people at risk of mental illness, while others may be beneficial to the very same people.

So where does this leave us? Cannabis is a drug because:

1: The government says so for no good reason
2: Because it’s a medicine in its whole plant form
3: Because the effect of taking everything the plant produces into the body is what gives the overall cannabis experience.

Cannabis is not a drug because

1: The government says so for no good reason
1: Because it’s a medicine in its whole plant form
2: Because the effect of taking everything the plant produces into the body is what gives the overall cannabis experience.

That’s clear then.

So the conclusion to all this is really that cannabis is simply not like other drugs, it is a thing in its own right. It is a drug in the general use of the word and is understood as such even by many of those who refuse to call it a drug but enjoy getting stoned, but it isn’t a (singular) drug. The cannabis experience is something only this particular plant can give, a balance of chemicals specific to individual strains of the plant. The “cannabis drug effect” is many and varied, although specific to particular strains and therefore predictable.

It is correct then to talk of cannabis as a drug because it is taken for its drug effect but that drug effect is the effect of cannabis not the individual drugs it contains. So on balance cannabis is a drug but it’s also important to understand why it is a totally unique substance and for cannabis law reform campaigners understanding this issue is perhaps one of the most important things we need to do.

Cannabis as we all know, is quite unique.

Is Cannabis A Drug (Reprise) - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Iain Lee of BBC Three Counties Radio

Peter Reynolds on the BBC 3CR breakfast show with Iain Lee, discussing the Crimestoppers scratch ‘n’ sniff card campaign aimed at catching cannabis growers

LISTEN HERE

Peter Reynolds, Three Counties Radio, 19th March 2013 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

As always, money was tight but we got the £500 deposit together and put CLEAR’s candidate – Peter Reynolds – name forward. We owe Naomi and our local members a vote of thanks for helping us get the nomination papers in on time.

Getting the leaflet printed and sent out involved jumping through a whole set of hoops to keep the Royal mail happy, made somewhat more complicated by the printers failing to deliver all of the print run on time. A series of urgent phone calls and last minute arrangements saved the day. We were quite proud  of the leaflet, if you haven’t seen it it’s here. Because it was our chance to tell everyone about our message, getting the leaflet out was perhaps the main point in standing.

Needless to say the amount of media coverage we got was close to zero, despite the  votes legalising cannabis in the USA which really should have made cannabis law reform something of an issue. Peter did get a couple of local radio interviews, BBC News24 interviewed him and the local press both mentioned his existence. But not one of our daily press releases was picked up. Worse, when the BBC radio 4 World this Weekend reported from the town the reporter and his sound guy happened across us as we were having a coffee and stopped for a long chat. They told us they were there to get voters comments, but the report that went out featured just one such comment and interviews with all the mainstream parties and the BNP.

The reception we got from the people of Corby was positive on the whole, just about everyone was friendly and receptive to the points we made. There was one exception, a lady who insisted the idea of getting the dealers off the street by licencing and controlling them was outrageous as they were making her life hell. It’s hard to reason with people like that and she came back for a second go as well. Most of the people we spoke to understood the points we were making though.

However, we did run up against a small problem

Corby town centre, where everyone gathers on a Saturday, is all privately owned. It looks like public streets (albeit traffic free), but it’s not. A guard working for the private company who owns it (not the one shown in the clip) first objected to my video camera “because it was against the terrorism act”, and called the manager who informed us us the company refused to allow any canvassing by parties “in the interests of neutrality”and we e were told to “leave the town”! The issue of private ownership of pubic spaces has been a growing problem for some time, but if it starts to be used to prevent the operation of the democratic process we have a very real problem. Canvassing voters is central to our democratic process has a long tradition, it’s something that should be a right, but apparently it’s not. In Corby, the town centre is the only place where large numbers of people gather – it is, literally, the centre of the community.

This did severely limit what we were able to do in terms of meeting the people of Corby and getting our message out. Add to this that we werren’t allowed to tie posters on lampposts – something I’ve done before at election times and it’s always been tolerated providing they were taken down within a couple of weeks of the election. In Corby we were told “No”.

We also paid the surrounding towns of Thrapstone and Oudle a visit. These are very different places to Corby, politically conservative and very pretty little towns. Again. we were generally quite well received, people stopped and talked to us, took our leaflets and gave us positive feedback. Interestingly there was no problem with canvassing in these places.

On a positive note talking to other candidates at the count we were given the impression they all accepted things were probably going to change with the cannabis laws – even the BNP seem to accept it now.

In the event we polled 137 (0.38%)  which wasn’t a great result, but we never expected to win and getting votes wasn’t the reason for standing. The full results were

Andy Sawford (Lab) 17,267 (48.41%, +9.71%)
Christine Emmett (C) 9,476 (26.57%, -15.63%)
Margot Parker (UKIP) 5,108 (14.32%)
Jill Hope (LD) 1,770 (4.96%, -9.48%) – lost deposit
Gordon Riddell (BNP) 614 (1.72%, -2.93%)
David Wickham (Eng Dem) 432 (1.21%)
Jonathan Hornett (Green) 378 (1.06%)
Ian Gillman (Ind) 212 (0.59%)
Peter Reynolds (Cannabis) 137 (0.38%)
David Bishop (Elvis) 99 (0.28%)
Mr Mozzarella (Ind) 73 (0.20%)
Dr Rohen Kapur (Young) 39 (0.11%)
Adam Lotun (Dem 2015) 35 (0.10%)
Chris Scotton (UPP) 25 (0.07%)

It’s not easy to run an election campaign in Corby for an independent group like us and the attention of the media was very much on the Labour/Conservative battle. The person to really feel sorry for was Adam Lotun, who was campaigning on a platform that should have been well received in Corby, given it’s high rates of unemployment. He worked really hard and came up against the same problems we did of simply not being able to get his message out.

We did our best to get the issue of cannabis law reform on the agenda and we managed to do that to some extent, overall it was a valuable experience and over the next week or so we’ll decide on how to engage in future elections.

The Corby Experience - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

The latest local church attendance figures from the Church of England for 2010 show that approaching 1.7 million people continue to attend Church of England services each month, and around 1.1 million attend one of the Church of England’s 16,000 churches as part of a typical week.

So there are many more cannabis users than regular church goers.

I only mention this comparison with church attendance to underline how common cannabis use is in today’s society, it really is at such a level as to be considered “normalised” by most standards, yet it remains something that is illegal, supposedly the focus of a policy designed to bring about the eradication of the pass-time, It should be obvious by now that cannabis use is not going to be eradicated, whatever your view of it cannabis is here to stay as they say, get used to it.

Believe it or not cannabis is supposed to be prohibited. Prohibition is madness, it’s a policy that keeps this huge culture underground and in the arms of a massive uncontrolled criminal industry.It tries to protect people by criminalising them and calls itself “drug control” by making any form of control impossible.

The Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC)  drugs inquiry is over now as far as we can tell. I don’t hold out much hope that it will bring any significant change, partly because it was chaired by Keith Vaz who is an MP very unlikely to rock any boats but also because the government has made it abundantly clear it has no intention of making any changes to the prohibition law, no matter how persuasive the argument, no matter what the evidence.

It’s not just this government, this blind faith in prohibition extends to both main parties, but it’s worth remembering that is now upheld by  David Cameron who previously stated – before he came to power – that he wanted to see change. The degree people like David Cameron and the whole government is committed to prohibition has to be suspect, it’s hard to think of any policy in any other area that would have been allowed to coast along in the way drug policy has with no hint of success and with no attempt to measure its impact. It’s as if someone is making a lot of money from the whole sorry mess, it’s hard indeed to think of any other explanation beyond corruption of some form.

The best we can hope for from the HASC is consideration of the idea of decriminalisation, perhaps along the lines of the Portugal regime which we can expect to be rejected. So would that be a good thing? Should we welcome in effect a blind eye being turned to small scale drug use, what is often called “taking a softer line”?

Decrim is not legalisation, it would still allow some kind of non-criminal sanction against cannabis consumers, but it would at least be non-criminal. Also, it does nothing to change the nature of the supply side which would still be uncontrolled, unregulated and a source of funds for organised criminals and terrorists.

Let’s be clear about this: If it were not for the horror that is prohibition a policy like decriminalisation would be objectionable madness. The only thing decrim has going for it is it’s not as bad as full on prohibition; people who do have problems with their drug use are less inhibited from coming forward for help and less people will have their lives ruined by a criminal record.

So should we welcome a “softer” line on drugs? I don’t like that sort of question because I would want to answer “no” to it, but I would want to answer “no” because I support real drug law reform and want to see an end to prohibition, not some half-way house of tinkering with the present regime in the hope of making it less bad.

What I want to see is a proper regime of control for the commercial supply of drugs used for enjoyment*, especially cannabis. It’s important to realise the commercial supply of drugs exists whether or not it’s legal, and at the moment represents a huge mutli billion pound endeavour reaching into every section of society.

The one thing prohibition is not is “drug control”. Prohibition doesn’t even try to control drugs because that can only be done by controlling the trade. Instead prohibition tries to control people – each and every one of us – which is why it doesn’t work. Decrim would not be drug control either, nothing would change in that respect.

Controlling drugs means properly enforced laws over the supply side to ensure the product is clean, of known strength and potency and not supplied by unsuitable people, along with other measures to protect the vulnerable such as age limits for sales. This isn’t a “softer” line, it would be a very real form of drug control. It would be a more practical regime than we have now because it would be in the interests of the consumers, it would have their support and it wouldn’t treat the people it was designed to help as criminals.

But of course I do support anything that would make the situation less bad, it makes no sense to carry on arresting people, ruining lives, tearing families apart and all the other things prohibition does. Decriminalising small scale use makes sense – or as much sense as it’s possible to have under the current mad regime. It’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, only a little bit better but better none the less.

This is why I support CLEAR in its call for cannabis law rerom even though I don’t use it myself. The forthcoming by-election in Corby is an opportunity to try to put the whole sorry mess that is prohibition onto the political agenda. For sure, none of the mainstream parties wants to talk about it.

____________________________

* A footnote: I wrote above “drugs used for enjoyment”, someone is bound to ask about medical use of cannabis. My personal take on this is yes of course, medical use is something that should never be denied, even if the “medical use” simply makes an illness easier to deal with. In my opinion to do so is tantamount to torture. Fact is though, the free use of cannabis for medical reasons will never be possible while so-called “recreational” use is prohibited. If some form of recreational use becomes legal, then medical use becomes available by default – as do all the non-drug uses of hemp etc. So the way I see it is that the focus of the law reform effort should be on recreational use.

Does Decriminalisation Make Sense? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/does-decriminalisation-make-sense/feed/ 10 http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/ http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/#comments Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:19:03 +0000 Derek Williams http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=7432 Read more...

CLEAR T Shirts - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> Show your support for CLEAR with a CLEAR TShirt

 

 

Only a few left – avaiable in  XL and XXL sizes

Send  £25 inc P&P to CLEAR, PO Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey. RH1 1BN – don’t forget your return address!

Or order through PayPal:

What size?

XL £25.00 GBP XXL £25.00 GBP

CLEAR T Shirts - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/clear-t-shirts/feed/ 1 http://www.clear-uk.org/should-clear-stand-in-the-corby-by-election/ http://www.clear-uk.org/should-clear-stand-in-the-corby-by-election/#comments Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:36:52 +0000 Peter Reynolds http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=6905 Read more...

Should CLEAR Stand In The Corby By-Election? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> This week CLEAR members were asked for their views on whether we should stand in the Corby by-election.

Dear Member

As you may know, it looks likely that there will be a by-election in the Northampton town of Corby in November.

We are considering whether I should stand as a candidate and I would welcome your views on the subject.

CLEAR has never aimed to win seats in parliament because we are a single issue party. However, this may be an opportunity to stand and create a campaign to win more influence for our cause and to highlight the fact that both major parties have identical and dysfunctional cannabis policies. What we will be aiming for is publicity and, it is possible, that it might give us more credibility with MPs and the government.

On the other hand, we are unlikely to win more than a few hundred votes so it could be that all an election would demonstrate is how limited our support is.

On the positive side, Corby is a marginal seat with an existing majority to the Conservatives of just under 2000. So, if we were able to gain 500, maybe even 1000 votes, we could be an important factor. However, current polling in the constituency has Labour at 52%, Conservative at 37% and Lib Dem at 7%. We could end up being lumped in with the Monster Raving Loony party and achieving nothing.

I have already made contact with the local Lib Dems, Green Party and UKIP, all of whom have policies sympathetic to our cause, to see if we could work together. We do need to decide though whether or not we want to stand. We will need a budget of at least £1500 which we will have to raise specially. £500 will go on our deposit which we will lose and then we will have to print leaflets for a free delivery to every household and pay travelling and other campaigning expenses.

What do you think? Please let me know by replying to this email. We’re not conducting this as a formal referendum but you can say yes or no and please add any comments or ideas.

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

A representative selection of responses is published below.  All identifying information has been removed. The executive committee will reach a decision within the next few days.

hi, i think you should go for it, i think it will be a good to test the water for future reference. thanks

*
Eight reasons to stand at Corby

1] This gives an opportunity for the issues around cannabis law reform
to be posted to every household in the constituency. If there were 50
000 households that would make a cost of delivery of £1 for every 100
households

2] If you get 500 votes in a constituency of 50k votes that is 1% of the vote.
If you got the same result in 600 constituencies in a general election
that amounts to 300 000 votes. Politicians notice this statistic and
it will influence their policies

3] Cannabis politics has existed since 1997 that is 15 years since that time,
Cannabis has become legally available to medical users in 17 American states
And cannabis is available on the NHS for MS and spasm patients.
Cannabis social clubs are now legal in Spain and Belgium.

4] Cannabis law reform is not just a single issue, it covers the right
for farmers to grow hemp, it covers the right of people to self
medicate, it covers the right of privacy in peoples own homes, it
covers environmental issues in that the cannabis can supply raw
material for food and food manufacturing, manufacturing for paper,
clothing, plastic, building materials and fuel.

5 Since clear advertises itself as a political party, it makes sense
to start to put up candidates.

6] Prosecution guidelines now allow for medical users growing under
nine plants to be given a caution.

7] There is no comparison between a cannabis political party and the M
R Loony party the first affects the lives of millions of people and
thousands who endure prosecution and prison
whereas the second is a frivolous joke intended to inject some humour
into the political system., It is interesting to note that Screaming
lord Sutch’s first political party was the national teenage party,
and the policy was votes for teenagers, It is interesting to note that
this policy ins now law, in that minimum age for voting is now 18 and
lowering the age to 16 is under discussion

8] As the Clear website advertises the Cannabis Truth Roadshow, what
better place to start than the Corby by-election, with a candidate
standing for Parliament.

*
I believe if we can work alongside the other parties mentioned it would be an opportunity not to be missed
as I believe you do also. It would be another avenue for us to stampede down with other more recognized
parties. This can only be a good thing for Clear despite the minority within our party who will oppose it.

To stand alone however could as you suggested be detrimental in the long run for our cause, and my
opinion is that it would be too risky even though the idea was worthy of thought and discussion Peter.

Your passion for us all is great Peter and I’d personally like to thank you for all your hard work which can
sometimes be taken for granted by some.

*
YES : Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

*
Thanks

A marginal is likely to be hotly contested with any CLEAR effort all but obliterated by the campaign efforts
of the major parties latter struggling to remain within their own budgets and legal spending limits
*
It does coincide with the police elections, so that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on
whether it steals or provides the limelight. However, it’s a lot of time, effort and money and not much time
for preparation to get a couple of hundred votes. Though it would be invaluable experience for yourselves I
would imagine.

Personally I don’t mind if you do or don’t as both have pros and cons. Do something though if you don’t
stand, such as 5,000 educational leaflets delivered to affluent city suburbs (where the people with the
power and heard voices live!).

Thanks for your hard work,

*
I think that running is a good idea, especially considering the media attention this by-election is likely to
receive. It is important for this party to be seen to be active and to be “getting our name out there”. At the
very least it is cheap advertising, there are probably millions of people sympathetic to our cause who have
no idea CLEAR exists. Any well reasoned pro-cannabis campaign is a good thing. This may not gain
Corby resident’s votes, but it may well change some minds.

*
run in the election i live in the area please run i will vote x

*
Stand.
1. It will give publicity to the cause
2. You will not win but regardless of the number of votes you will receive you will be able to confirm and
then state that you have political mandate.
3. If you get a half decent percentage it will almost certainly make mainstream news

*
I think that anything that raises our profile with the people and the powers that be can only be good. It
would allow us to have a voice in parliament and an opportunity to show that we are responsible and
serious about what we say. Not the reefer mad men or sceavy stoners they probably think we are.
Credibilty is paramount and if we can gain some with M.P.s all the better.

If we go down like a lead brick we will stand back up and carry on. Strong in the knowledge we have
gained from the experience. If we don’t get any votes will anybody remember next year???

I think the pro’s out weigh the cons.

*
YES!

I think that the level of exposure the party would receive if you were to stand would be an excellent
advantage, allowing us to reach people who otherwise may not be aware of CLEAR. A large part of the
problem CLEAR has is that people are unaware either of the facts regarding cannabis, or that a legitimate,
well-organised party is campaigning for sensible treatment of both cannabis and it’s users. Some of the
posters on the CLEAR website (especially the one about drug dealers) would have an excellent influence
on the public if they were exposed to them, however opportunities for this exposure are limited. So despite
the unlikelihood of winning I believe that standing would allow the party access to the general public, both
cannabis users and non-users, and this exposure will certainly gather more support. Another worthwhile
point to mention is that due to ill formed opinions on cannabis, the media could pounce on this as it is a
controversial subject, and after all they only care about headlines. This could lead to national exposure,
which could only be a good thing. I say this because, firstly, the party needs to reach more people,
especially users (obviously they are more sympathetic to the cause) and people suffering from illness who
are unaware of the beneficial health effects of cannabis. Secondly, I think that national (or any) media
coverage can only be a positive because we, unlike prohibitionists, are backed up by science. Not only
are we able to prove that our arguments are true and reasonable, we can also disprove the drivel that is fed
to the general public regularly by the media regarding cannabis.

Standing in the election seems to me like the best idea, the exposure will definitely work to our
advantage. Even if the results are terribly low, this too could help as people who are sympathetic to our
cause but failed to vote for whatever reason would perhaps realise that the only way for change to happen
is for everyone who believes as we do to stand up for what they believe in. And if we did win then we would
undoubtedly be in a much stronger position, and other parties that are sympathetic to our cause would be
less afraid of supporting us, especially if some of our votes come from what they thought were their
supporters.

Standing for election shows that we are serious about the issue, and the exposure would do nothing but
good for us. I say to go for it, what’s the worst that can happen :)

*
Yes for sure!

*
I think it would be best to try and work with the Liberal Democrats. Alone CLEAR would probably not get
many votes even from people who support law reform because other issue (jobs, government cuts etc) will
be higher up their agenda. I think the most effective way of making cannabis law reform a mainstream
issue is to try and influence the Lib. Dems. to support it. They can use it to criticize the two main parties
for their nonsensical policies which will bring the issue into the media eye and force top politicians to talk
about it.

*
Should we put up a candidate in Corby?

Yes (if it is worth it).

Is it going to be worth it?

That depends on how much effort we can put into it.

We know we are going to take a pounding, this is a golden opportunity to
find out exactly how much. Bugger the money, handled correctly the
publicity from the BBC alone should bring in 5 times what it costs.

The deposit aside, all you need is volunteers. I don’t know how much
first hand experience you have with the election process but the
marginal ones are not won by policies or parties but by sheer weight of
numbers of active supporters pounding the streets beforehand. Granted
it would take 10s of thousands in our case to gain the win but if we
don’t get that we could lose in grand style. A single vote cast for
Clear is a win simply because it has never been done before and if we
can flood the streets with short haired, booted and suited helpers while
the cameras are rolling we win even more.

One very important question though, why you? Have we not got a middle
aged, moderately good looking, articulate, “liberal”, female, medicinal
user, party member who lives in the area who can address issues of
importance to the locals from a local perspective. Better that than
some carrot cruncher up from the west country for the day. There are
loads of votes cast in favour of locals merely because they are,
especially if you make it an issue. Which, if we have a local candidate
and the main parties do their normal parachute attack, we can.

And for gods sake, if the money is there along with the consensus to
stand then make the results of these discussions as public as you can.
Let Us do what They don’t.

One last thing, if we do stand, we are not standing in order to lose,
our intention is to win and whether we win or lose is not up to us or
the paid lackey of any media mogul, it is up to the voters of Corby.
The decision is theirs and will be made on the day and we can get even
more votes for just sticking to that line regardless of anything to do
with Cannabis.

*
I think it’s a great idea, even if people just hear about Clear, it will at least be known of when people start
looking into it.

You could run a Fundraiser, I’d expect active members to donate maybe £4 or £5 if convinced.

Keep fighting the good fight!

*
Yes do it, publicity is publicity good or bad best case scenario you win the seat and we are represented in
parliament, worst case you don’t either way the public are more aware of us and our cause. The majority
of people I know agree prohibition is ridiculous maybe the good people of Corby feel the same

*
I think you should stand at the by-election.
Corby has a huge problem with drug addicts which in turn means more
dealers living off the back of this problem. I feel strongly that people
should be allowed to live as they feel fit if they do no harm
to anyone else. Personal responsibility should be embraced
instead of the prohibition we live under ,and I’m not
talking just cannabis.
I am a clear member because of my Son’s mental
health problems and his needs, I have never used cannabis, BUT, I would
like the God given right to do so without interference IF I CHOSE to.
I am supporting you Peter as you are speaking out for the thousands
who want this freedom. Thank you

*
Go for it, Peter, it highlights the issue and could change the outcome.
By the way Labour DO have many supporters of decriminalisation. (UKIP – sympathetic – in your deepest
dreams !!! They are more likely to hang us !!).
You are representing a single issue campaign, but there is benefit in spreading across to other issues
such as freedom of speech and environmental issues too.
Also the issue of state v. private – don’t we want cannabis controlled by the government directly, making it
a state endeavour – ?
Private enterprise invariably rnds up making money for the bosses of these companies while the
empleyees and the customers get a raw deal.

*
Ultimately I think it is a good idea to run, although it will obviously involve a lot of work, whether or not
everyone’s time would be better placed elsewhere I am not sure, I’m a new member. However, thinking
outside the box, why not stand in the by-election but put no effort or expenditure whatsoever into the
campaign. Clearly winning a majority of votes is an ideal and unachievable situation, but if getting the word
out about CLEAR policies and cannabis is general is the ultimate aim, would it be such a bad thing to be
lumped in with the monster raving loony party? One thing they have going for them is everyone is aware of
their existence. I know nothing of politics and I have just realised there are probably hundreds of unknown
parties which slip under the radar. My main point is, winning all the votes or no votes would possibly
increase awareness due to press coverage. Some votes would be a waste of time and money. So why not
run with a view to increase awareness rather than win? Perhaps next time round curiosity will have
circulated enough to make a difference. There are undoubtedly countless cannabis smokers all over the
country who have no knowledge of the party and this, I think, is the main flaw. All the best,

*
I think it might not be the right time yet, maybe let Clear be more established, also wait until there is a
seat in a more cannabis friendly constituency like Brighton or Bristol.

*
Doesn’t seem worth the cost of the deposit to me; especially in these economic times it’s just not worth
the risk of poaching left-leaning votes away from labour anyway. The decriminal/legal-isation will never be
possible without the support of at least one of the large parties, so it doesn’t seem worth trying to take
them on in that way.

*
Yes. I feel like it would get our name out there and that publicity at the moment is the biggest issue.

*
I was wondering, before deciding, how easy would it be to gauge what people think about the legalisation
issue already in this constituency/whether they would vote for CLEAR in a by-election? There could be
other constituencies where we are less likely to get lumped with the MRLP, where the money could be
better spent? Although I would imagine people are more likely to vote minority parties in by-elections. Just
a thought, I think if we could see what the general feeling is in this constituency first, maybe that would
help a decision to be made?

*
I think it is a good idea for you to stand as candidate. It is the only way the voice of CLEAR is going to be
heard.

I would just like to add that although I support the group, I cannot contribute any monies due to lack of
funds.

*
Personally I think you should go for. We will never make any progress in getting changes made to the law
if we are afraid to get our feet wet. Surely it would also be an invaluable information gathering exercise as
to how the general public feels about this issue. Also what needs to be done to help change the publics
mind on an issue that has a lot of negative press and ‘druggie’ stigma attached to it.

*
I don’t think it’s a good idea, I think the money could be better spent on raising publicity via the internet,
Facebook, Twitter or a dedicated iPhone app for Clear.

I am one of those people who developed psychosis after smoking cannabis, prior to my breakdown I had
worked for a number of years at Calder Hall power station as an electrician, while working their I inhaled a
lot of copper dust, & was exposed to other heavy metals such as mercury & lead, I then left and did an art
course at Blackpool college, I was doing airbrushing but wasn’t given any safety information about the
heavy metals contained in artists materials, after leaving college I was smoking cannabis & had a
breakdown with suicidal psychosis, I don’t believe my psychosis was down to the cannabis but the fact
that cannabis breached the blood brain barrier allowing the heavy metals in my system to flood my brain,
it was over 18 years before I had a heavy metal detox & by that time the damage to brain was permanent,
I take a minimum dose of mood stabilisers however since doing the detox my health is greatly improved
& I’ve eliminated the psychological & physical symptoms caused by the heavy metals, when I smoke
cannabis now all I get is the giggles & munchies.

I believe there is a conspiracy of silence about the real causes of cannabis psychosis.

Cannabis is known to absorb heavy metals, it is my belief that the small number of people who develop
psychological symptoms do so because of a toxic overload of heavy metals such as copper, mercury &
lead.

All the time throughout my illness I struggled with residual symptoms not once did my psychiatrist or gp
test me for heavy metals or offer a detox, I had to do it myself through my own research.

Most of the research into heavy metal toxicity is done in the US were heavy metal toxicity is considered a
medical emergency requiring immediate detox to avoid lasting damage.

Do some research on the Internet in particular the work of Dr Wilson (copper toxicity) Dr Andrew Hall
Cutler (mercury toxicity) there are various books & research papers online into the psychological effects of
mercury, copper & lead on the brain leading to adverse psychological symptoms

*
In principle, I think CLEAR should take the opportunity and stand. Not least to show the doubters and
naysayers that CLEAR is active. However, this would only make sense if there is a budget sufficient
enough to make a real impact in raising awareness of CLEAR. Are there any larger donors who could be
persuaded to support the campaign?

Let me know if you need any help during the campaign, should you choose to go ahead with it.

Good luck and keep up the good work!

*
I simply don’t think we’d be able to get enough votes together to make a big splash here. IT would be
awesome if it was possible, but I just don’t think there will be enough people willing to vote for a single
issue party in a marginal seat, where they then risk their desired candidate missing the seat.

*
I think that overall you would have nothing to lose by standing and, if you can raise sufficient funds and
public awareness, it would be good to get an idea of the support there is for our cause in the Corby area,

Should CLEAR Stand In The Corby By-Election? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]> http://www.clear-uk.org/should-clear-stand-in-the-corby-by-election/feed/ 11 http://www.clear-uk.org/ex-scra-understanding-a-new-prohibition-created-danger/ http://www.clear-uk.org/ex-scra-understanding-a-new-prohibition-created-danger/#comments Sun, 05 Aug 2012 15:57:12 +0000 Derek Williams http://www.clear-uk.org/?p=6783 Read more...

EX-SCRA: Understanding A New Prohibition Created Danger - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

]]>

EX-SCRA – The Campaign For Real Cannabis

CLEAR has launched a new campaign called of “EX-SCRA – Exposing Synthetic Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists” (See here) because this is an issue the cannabis law reform campaign has not so far been active in, but which is very relevant to the cause of cannabis law reform; the so-called “legal highs” trade in synthetic imitation cannabis.

Prohibition – the basis of the laws that apply to cannabis – is justified by its supporters as being in place to protect people from the claimed dangers of cannabis use. What was supposed to happen was prohibition would prevent the commercial trade and no trade was supposed to prevent a large scale demand for cannabis; people were expected to obey the law in other words, hence the deluded idea that prohibition represented a form of “control”. It has, over the years, become a very well funded delusional form of control with dire consequences.

As we know, things haven’t turned out as planned; millions of British people use cannabis, the vast majority without harm. This huge demand has produced the industry that now illegally supplies this demand. The police spend countless millions of pounds trying to close the trade down, which simply pushes the price up, increasing the profit incentive. Not only that but money spent on trying to support the prohibition regime has created yet another new problem to add to the anarchy and uncontrolled mayhem  we are all so familiar with.

We have the pressure cooker effect of ever greater repression; ever greater expenditure fueling ever bigger profits and therefore ever more organised criminal involvement in the trade. There is a constant supply of entrepreneurs looking for a way into this trade and an eager reserve of consumers ready to support the supply. Add to this funding from the US National Institute of Drug Abuse  which created a whole wad of new chemicals that simply never exited before, the globalisation of  trade and the internet to supply the product and suddenly prohibition has found a new and potentially very dangerous way to fail; a true own goal of epic proportions funded by the American tax payer.

The important thing to remember about cannabis is that it isn’t a new drug,  it’s been used for thousands of years – the earliest documented use being around 5000 years ago in China (2,700BC). Indeed, what scientists now know about the workings of the brain is very mixed up with the study of cannabis, so much so that the part of the brain which cannabis compounds (Cannabinoids) work on are called “Cannabinoid receptors”. The brain doesn’t make Cannabinoids, it produces Endocannabinoids which share some of the same properties as the cannabis compounds.  All this has lead to the discovery of the “Endocannabinoid system” (wikipedia) , which turns out to be a vital, although very complex regulating system for the human body.

But what is clear to see from all the recent hype about so-called “skunk” is that a change – not in the actual chemicals made by the cannabis plant but simply in the proportion of those chemicals (THC/CBD) – is thought to be capable of leading to mental health problems for some vulnerable people, albeit a small proportion of consumers. What we have now is the introduction of entirely new compounds which target the same parts of the brain as cannabis does, chemicals who owe nothing to evolution or the natural world and everything to drug war research. Anyone want to bet this is a good thing?

Given that cannabis and the products it produces were illegal, scientists were bound, sooner of later, to look for other compounds that interacted with the Cannabinoid receptors in the brain, either because the law makes it illegal to work with cannabis compounds or – as seems to have happened – prohibition simply provided the funding to do so. Such compounds are called “Agonists” (wikipedia) and so these new synthetic chemicals are termed “Synthetic Cannabinoid receptor Agonists” or SCRAs (google scholar search)

The important point to make is that SCRAs are not cannabis type Cannabinoids – they are not the product of the cannabis plant. Hence they are described as “Synthetic Cannabinoids”, They should not as is often done be called  “Synthetic cannabis”. They are totally new compounds which work on the same parts of the brain as do Cannabinoids, but what they do in the process to the workings of the endocannabinoid system will be different to the effect real Cannabinoids  have; it will be specific to each individual SCRA. The long term impact of these chemicals isn’t clear yet – indeed no-one has a clue of what it might be. In the short term apparently they produce an effect that is a little like getting stoned and of course, that’s all the business people who want to make money are interested in; they have a new product to sell that the prohibition laws don’t cover.

John Huffman, inventor of SCRAs

The scientist responsible for all this has retired now, but is still alive; Dr Huffman of Clemson University in the US. According to the” Central Science” website

 The only reason Huffman doesn’t tell his fans to go ahead and smoke marijuana instead, is because it’s illegal. Huffman does not break the law.

Interestingly it seems these compounds were developed with money provided by perhaps the world leader in prohibition promotion: The USA’s “National Institute of Drug Abuse”  (NIDA) ABC news claims

Professor John W. Huffman of Clemson University was given a grant by the National Institute of Drug Abuse to create drugs that mimic the effects of THC.

and

The U.S. government might not be scrambling to ban “Spice,” the “legal marijuana” that’s sending teens to emergency rooms across the country, if it hadn’t helped invent the drug in the first place.

Huffman first obtained the NIDA grant in 1984, which ultimately totaled $2,564,000, when the government asked him to synthesize the human metabolite of THC. In the 1990s, NIDA asked him to switch gears, and either develop medicine or study the “cannabinoid receptors” in the brain, which respond to marijuana.

The suspicion is NIDA wanted to produce an “Antagonist” for cannabis; a product which would block the effects of Cannabinoids and so prevent people getting stoned. It’s  a sort of sick minded antidote to pleasure, the idea of inoculating people against drugs is still a dream of prohibitionists. Either way, the pedigree of SCRAs realy couldn’t be worse, they were actually created by drug war funding, an own goal of stupefying proportions, seriously you couldn’t make this up. As a result of this drug war money, Dr Huffman synthesised around 500 different SCRAs, by now there are probably many more.

SCRAs first turned up here as products such as “Spice”,  ”K2″ and various other brands. They are made up to look like a herbal high, inert herbs are sprayed with the SCRA chemicals or gooey brown stuff  mixed up with SCRAs to look like hash. Of course, the government has banned some SCRA’s, but prohibition is never going to control the flood of new variants now hitting the market; ever more untested products produced without any form of regulation or control and sold by people with not the slightest idea of the real nature of the product they are selling. It’s easy enough to find SCRA products on the internet and this isn’t likely to stop any time soon.

Make no mistake, this has only come about because of the workings of prohibition which has created the perverted economic situation that opened the door to the trade in the products it created. There is only one way to close this door and to end the trade in SCRA’s; legalise the trade in real cannabis.

So the CLEAR campaign called EX-SCRA is more than just an awareness campaign, it’s also a campaign for real cannabis.

EX-SCRA

This post originally appeared on UKCIA

EX-SCRA: Understanding A New Prohibition Created Danger - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

A guest article by DisqusCannabis.

This is the same Ken Clarke that was deputy chairman of British American Tobacco. Ironic isn’t it?

In the last HASC meeting, Prof Nutt predicted a 25% reduction in alcohol use if cannabis was legalised. Now you see why they called in Ken to give evidence yesterday, to protect the tobacco profits! He cannot relinquish his stance on cannabis for fear of BAT’s share value plummeting. ‘Soft’ drugs are never explicitly mentioned. Ministers only use the single phrase ‘drugs’ so they don’t have to class them separately, or compare them to the ‘drugs’ they want us to take.

This man doesn’t know anything about drugs, other than how to run a multi-billion dollar company that sells them. 100,000 deaths each year Ken! He even acknowledges that prohibition isn’t working, but offers no alternative solution. Mr Clarke and the government don’t want a solution. They want to funnel people down the path of caffeine/alcohol/tobacco use as they ARE addictive. That’s the whole point, a constant revenue stream.

In almost every instance, the groups that object to cannabis legalisation stand to lose a great deal of their income. Boots object so they retain a huge share of the market in ‘everyday’ drugs, for example paracetamol.

Tobacco and alcohol industries fear the drop in revenue.

‘Research’ groups and charities object as they get funding to carry out said research.

That was the cause of the disgraceful study the British Lung Foundation released several weeks ago. They know that tobacco has been proven to cause lung conditions, so are unlikely to receive further funding to ‘research’ it. As a result they switch to ‘researching’ cannabis therefore receiving funding and donations. They claimed cannabis smoking was 20 times as harmful as tobacco when the evidence suggests the exact opposite.

The BLF were even stupid enough to include Donald Tashkin’s study from 1988 in their report. In 1988, Tashkin was given a research grant from the US Government to ‘prove’ cannabis causes cancer. At that time, he believed this to be the case. After further studies, Tashkin concluded the exact opposite. Pure cannabis smokers were shown to have the same or slightly lower risk of head, neck, mouth and lung cancer as non-smokers!

The BLF conveniently ignored this result, and only published his earlier study in their report. I guess they didn’t expect anybody would disbelieve their claims. If they are looking for further funding, they shouldn’t lie in order to receive it. That is theft by deception, a criminal offence!

The fact that ‘Boots’ group submitted evidence against cannabis legalisation should tell you all you need to know! Why would a pharmacy group have cause to object to cannabis legalisation? Because of its many medicinal properties perhaps? But doesn’t our government say cannabis has no medicinal value? Why would Boots object then? Hang on, didn’t the Home Office licence GW Pharma to legally grow hundreds of tonnes of cannabis per year to sell as medicine? That could get confusing.

I have tried to demonstrate to people a current example of a politician/business/lobby group that supports prohibition for their own motives.This HASC inquiry shows all three of these groups doing exactly that publicly.

If people wish to continue believing the lies our government and media spout about cannabis, more fool them. If they wish to enlighten themselves, all the info is available on line.

In the interest of balance, I accept cannabis is not completely harmless. It is however, rated almost identically to caffeine in its potential harm to self and others, a drug our current laws allow to be sold unrestricted to five year olds.This is why the government doesn’t like to compare the relative harm of ollegal and legal drugs.

The prohibition of Cannabis is preventing cures and treatments for hundreds of conditions. Alzheimers, MS, Parkinsons, arthritis, depression, schizophrenia, PTSD etc. Perhaps the biggest failure is that a potential cancer cure is unable to be developed. THC has proven cancer killing properties, both in the lab and in animals. No ‘official’ human tests have been done that I am aware of, but many people are individually treating their cancer with cannabis. They are claiming they have full remission of their cancers after treatment with cannabis oil. We will never know if official testing cannot be done. I can only assume that our politicians don’t care about a possible cancer cure when there is so much money to be made elsewhere.

People are being lied to. Cannabis is the most beneficial plant mankind has ever known. Why don’t we stop patronising our citizens and tell them the truth? They will find out in the end, and they won’t be happy when they do!

Ken Clarke At The HASC Drugs Inquiry - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

___________________________

CLEAR Equal Opportunities Statement

We believe it is essential to CLEAR’s principles, productivity, and efficacy to enable activists of all backgrounds to reach their full potential by encouraging an environment that is inclusive to all.

To this end, and within the framework and spirit of the law, we are committed to achieving and maintaining a support and activist base which broadly reflects the community at large.

CLEAR whole-heartedly supports the principle of equal opportunities and opposes all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin, sex, disability, age, religious belief, sexual orientation or marital status.

We welcome people who support cannabis law reform from whatever cultural, ethnic or political backgrounds, be they cannabis users or not.

We believe that it is in CLEAR’s best interests and of all those who work as part of it, to attract, retain and develop a diverse pool of activists and supporters.

Every possible step will be taken to ensure that individuals are treated equally and fairly, and a mechanism will be introduced for people to raise concerns and seek action if they feel an infringement has been made. Members found to be in violation of the CLEAR equal opportunities policy will be dealt with in accordance with a defined disciplinary procedure.

Note

The formal Disputes procedure is being drafted and will be presented shortly.

————

As always we welcome comments, now is a good time to have your say.

CLEAR Constitution amendment: Equal Opportunities Statement - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

I would add a personal comment: Des has been very supportive of CLEAR, especially through the difficult times of the past couple of weeks. It is particularly sad that a man of such integrity was put under a great deal of stress caused by people pursuing their own agendas. Des is a real gem and it is first and foremost for people like him that CLEAR exists.

Derek

Des Humphrey - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Rather than repeat my story here, the events of 2011 are laid out in all their glory over on UKCIA – a four part review of 2011 from my viewpoint.

UKCIA review of 2011 – The End of Another Perfect Year

Perhaps the biggest and best development of 2011 has been the launching of CLEAR and I am more than happy to be associated with it. Indeed I longed for a campaign like this which could challenge the likes of Mary Brett and the National Drugs Prevention Alliance with facts. We’ve made a good start of doing that, indeed we’ve achieved a hell of a lot in the past 6 or so months (yes, it is only about 6 months), but we’ve got a long way to go.

It’s only fair to mention Peter Reynolds because without him none of what has been achieved so far would have been possible, but it hasn’t just been Peter and a big “thank you” must go to all the others that help out behind the scenes to make CLEAR what is it.

Just a couple of snippets to remind us all of why we are doing this:

Marjory Wallace on skunk

MP Nadine Dorries on Any Questions June 2011

And with that I wish you a Merry Christmas, a peaceful new year and stand firm in the down-turn

Derek

2011 and all that - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

It causes far more harm than it prevents.  It is based on prejudice and discrimination.  Science, medicine and all the evidence shows that regulation is the only rational policy.

We have won the argument.  There are now two more steps we must take before change can happen.  Firstly we must defeat the prohibitionists, the ProHos, and their vested interests.  Secondly we must find our cowardly, hypocritical politicians a way to save face in reversing the disastrous policy they have pursued for so long.

Judge Goldsack, the brute of Sheffield

Martin Barriuso

The ProHos are fighting a  desperate rearguard action.  The DEA crackdown on medical marijuana, the frenzied scaremongering of the right wing Australian press, the panic stricken lies and blatant falsification of scientific evidence by the Daily Mail.  The vicious and disproportionate campaign by the Sheffield police and judiciary. In Spain this week, Martin Barriuso, president of the Federation of Cannabis Associations was arrested and held without bail just as he was about to travel to London to present the cannabis social clubs concept in the House of Lords.

Skunk

Don’t doubt that the DEA is behind all this.  It is an autonomous, extrajudicial army that answers to no one, certainly not the US president.  It is in cahoots with GW Pharmaceuticals  which last week released clinical trials data showing that its super-strong, super-concentrated skunk cannabis medicine Sativex is safe and non-addictive.  The medical marijuana industry in the US is taking off.  Israel and all of Europe except Britain and France are recognising the immense value of medicinal cannabis.  The Portugal experiment has now run for more than 10 years and is a resounding success.  The DEA is panicking.  An awful lot of drug war soldiers are going to be redundant soon.  Some very fat cats are about to spill their last saucer of cream.

Michelle Leonhart, DEA

Melanie Phillips, Tabloid ProHo

The vile Melanie Phillips reveals her own panic in an absurd diatribe in today’s Daily Mail.  A deluge of statistics clogs her article, even relegating her usual hatred and prejudice to second place.  Does she really think that the average delusional Daily Mail reader is going to read them, or that anyone else will believe her cooking of the books?

We are winning.   These are the death throes of the most destructive and evil policy that the world has ever seen.  Expect more violent reaction.  Expect more cowardice from Cameron, whoever is Home Secretary and from the mendacious Daily Mail and its stooges.  Expect more misinformation and deceit from Home Office civil servants.  Expect more propaganda and misconduct from police officers and judges  that see their multi-billion pound gravy train coming to an end.  Expect more bribes and under the counter funding from Big Booze and Big Pharma.  Expect more numpty politicians like Charles Walker, Alan Johnson and Nadine Dorries to do everything they can to scare and mislead the public.

Expect all of this and more.  But know that all of this is because we are winning!

The ProHos Are Losing And They’re Fighting Like Alley Cats - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Now there has been the idea mooted for a while of banning smoking in cars when children are present and there is a good child protection case to be made for doing that, but this is a proposal for an across the board ban even when the smoker is the only person in the car.

What makes thnigs really interesting is the Deptartment of Health comment as printed in the Guardian (and thanks got to Jake Ish for spotting this gem):

“The government is unlikely to do what the BMA recommends, though. “We do not believe that legislation is the most effective way to encourage people to change their behaviour,” a Department of Health spokesman said.”

Yet, of course, they do believe legislation in the form of the prohibition of cannabis is an effective way of persuading people not to use it, in other words of encouraging people to change their behaviour. Consistency on matters like this was never one of the major failings of this or any government of course, but just to ask the blindingly obvious question:

If laws aren’t effective in encouraging people not to use tobacco, why are they effective in encouraging people not to use cannabis?

Answers on a postcard please.

Sauce for the goose… ? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Peter reynolds 5live-8-11-11 by NR23Derek

A reasonable interview, where the concerns expressed by RETHINK were given a fair hearing, along with Peter’s views. However, later (just before 9.00am) the same programme broadcast this contribution from Terry Hammond. Terry is the father of a young man who developed sever mental illness, who was also a cannabis user. Terry is a well known campaigner for the idea that cannabis causes mental illness and his case has underpinned the prohibition case against cannabis

Terry-hammond-5live-8-11-11 by NR23Derek
Terry claims cannabis causes brain damage, his views were aired at a time when far more people would have been listening than was the discussion involving Peter Reynolds. His claims were not challenged. Cannabis, it must be said, does not cause brain damage.

Radio 5 live 8th November 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party