“Judge Vows To Put Anyone Growing Cannabis Immediately Behind Bars”

 

Judge Alan Goldsack QC

SHEFFIELD’S top judge has issued a stark warning to anyone caught growing cannabis in South Yorkshire – immediate prison awaits.

“Cannabis is a dangerous drug and those who bring it into existence must be punished.”

Read the full story here.

I have written to Judge Goldsack and also to the Sheffield newspapers.

Your Honour,

I am writing to you concerning your recent statements about cannabis as published in the Sheffield Telegraph and The Star.

With great respect, you are entitled to pass judgement in court in accordance with the law and you are also entitled to your own opinions.  However, on the question of “cannabis is a dangerous drug”, this is neither a matter of law nor of opinion.  It is determined by scientific evidence and, quite clearly, cannabis cannot accurately be described as “dangerous”.

Professor Les Iversen, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the government’s chief drugs advisor is on the record repeatedly describing cannabis as “safe”.  A recent published analysis of hospital admissions, mortality, toxicity and propensity to psychosis showed cannabis as nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol.  The therapeutic ratio of cannabis (the ratio of effective dose to lethal dose) is 1:20000.  In comparison, alcohol is 1:20, paracetamol 1:35, many prescription medicines are less than 1:5.

The law is clear.  The Court of Appeal guidance is clear.  You will be aware that the Sentencing Council will publish new drug offences guidelines in October .  However, you do have discretion and there are many, many different types of cannabis growers.

Even where commercial gain is the objective I still find it difficult to understand how growing cannabis can routinely be treated more severely than violent assault or crimes of paedophilia.  This is a real loss of proportionality in our judicial system.  However, where, as in many cases, cannabis is grown for personal and private consumption, often for medicinal purposes, it is an affront to natural justice that a severe penalty can be imposed, let alone the travesty of common sense that prison amounts to.

Research published only this month shows that approximately three tonnes of cannabis is consumed in Britain every day.  The demand is colossal and prohibition has been an expensive failure.  A tax and regulate policy would contribute a net £6.7 billion per annum to the UK exchequer and massively reduce all health and social harms.  The law is the law as it stands but inevitably, change is on the way.  Science, medicine and economics demand it.

I appeal to you to be merciful to those who grow cannabis for their personal and private use and to discharge completely anyone who needs it as medicine.  There are now hundreds of peer reviewed, scientific studies that prove how effective it is for many chronic conditions.

I am grateful for being able to bring these points to your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

  • http://profiles.google.com/mombagambo Arnie Wellah

    good work, peter. Readers of this site would do well to copy, paste and post to his honour

  • Oliver Magrath

    Peter, I don’t know you, but I am so proud of you. Not only for having the sense of responsibilty to the public enough to do this, but for so elequintly explaining with reason and evidence our case. The will be a day eventually when we can have true personal freedom but until then I am honoured that we have someone like you fighting for us on the front lines.

  • Everyonesawanker

    great stuff i hope it gets through to the human being under the wig

  • Martialant

    For a start, in court i wouldn’t give him Jurisdiction. He’d have to fight me for that one.
    Then i would put to him that the ‘Misuse of drugs act’ is an ACT of parliament. Which under common law needs consent of the governed to be enforced.
    I would then put him on his Oath of office. If he couldn’t or wouldn’t present it to the court, i would make a Civil arrest on the man. (Same as the judge that was arrested in a Merseyside court).
    Also, if i was told cannabis is dangerous, i would question how he knew this. Which would be from him believing what he reads in the Daily Mail. So for him to pass judgement based on media propaganda and not facts, means he needs removing from his position, is he not committing treason with his abuse of power? Civil arrest him.
    Thats what i’d do. But im crazy enough to do it. I’d be famous twice in one court appearance.
    Time to medicate.

  • dave

    great work peter…it will be very interesting to see the reply

  • yaki dah

    Well done Peter, keep up all the good work and hopefully it will all become CLEAR one day for that judge…. Would love to see his reply.

  • yaki dah

    Well done Peter, keep up all the good work and hopefully it will all become CLEAR one day for that judge…. Would love to see his reply.

  • Patrick Stevenson

    I’ve just became a clear member and I am so happy I did. Great letter Peter, and keep spreading the message. Eventually they will have to acknowledge us. 

  • Lee.

    Well put Peter, I sincerely hope he gets to read it!

    Lee.

  • Cshaws

    Well put Peter.  I had started to draught a letter of my own to this judicial joke of a man, but yours eclipses mine.  I have always believed that those charged with administering the justice of this country were bound by two basic tenets i.e. the facts and the truth.  ”the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.  Surely this chap is acting in complete contravention of those tenets by relying on a wholly personal and non-factual opinion (I’m sure he’s not the only one).  I’m no legal expert but I like the drift of Martialant’s contribution to this thread – is it legally possible to do those things he has mentioned?   If so, there must be some references on the web which may be of assistance to those who are unlucky enough to encounter this bewigged, self-opinionated magistrate or one of his gin swilling buddies. It seems to me that the higher the mountain of evidence against prohibition gets, the further from the real world people in positions of power entrench themselves.   At some point something has to snap.

  • Cshaws

    I’m guessing Judge Goldsack is Jewish (or at least has a religion that aligns with the western view of an all seeing God). So when he says “…those that bring it [cannabis] into existence must be punished”  he is setting himself a very high judicial platform indeed !!!! 

    Isn’t this sort of delusional behaviour one of the symptoms of schizophrenia? Maybe it’s caused by just one single gulp of fine brandy? 

    His book (the one where some people say “.. the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in his hearings) says the following:

    On the “Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command)  ”earth” and “sea” are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command). 

    Good luck with that one Goldsack old bean.

  • Sensi Soldier

    thank you  peter,this man has lost it…. where’s the instant prison for rapists ?? your honour get off your ‘high’ horse and get a grip on reality you cant jail,policemen,doctors,nurses,teachers,buildes,accountants,and i expect judges,just for growing a plant in their own home for themselves ot eat,drink,spray,or indeed smoke, i mean wheres the sense in that ,with such a biast and predetermined mindset,surely the judge in question is not fit to judge these cases ,as he has already made up his mind, THIS JUDGE SHOULD NEVER BE ALOUD TO JUDGE A CANNABIS CASE OF ANY SORT ,as already it will not be a fair trial.typical British justice

  • AW

    I need more info on this jurisdiction stuff, ive seen the merseyside court stuff but didnt understand what they did, can you shed some light.

  • AW

    Excellent letter peter.

  • Dant Ro65

    i think another donation is in order. keep up the good work and dont let us down like other politicians habitually do.

  • alan.

    His job is exactly that – to judge – to ensure impartiality during a hearing, to judge each and every case individually on its merits based on facts.

    Do they not teach that at judge school?

    He does not deserve to hold his position for his impartiality….

  • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

    Thank you Dant.  Your support is greatly appreciated.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HIS5GWQRTPHY2GYNBGS6O4DBOE Frederick

    It’s great that you’re doing all you can to point out the scientific facts on cannabis, Peter.  One thing that raised concern with me though was that your quoted therapeutic doses, between letters, are inconsistent:

    http://clear-uk.org/judge-vows-to-put-anyone-growing-cannabis-immediately-behind-bars/#.Tn4j1zb4nX0.twitter
    “The therapeutic ratio of cannabis (the ratio of effective dose to
    lethal dose) is 1:20000.  In comparison, alcohol is 1:20, paracetamol
    1:35, many prescription medicines are less than 1:5.”

    http://clear-uk.org/pcc-complaint-the-evening-standard-26th-january-2011/
    “In alcohol the ratio is 1:50, in paracetamol 1:30, in cannabis 1:10000.”

    Which is it?  It may seem like I’m splitting hairs but we need to get our facts straight otherwise we’re no more credible than those we’re arguing against.

  • http://www.dope-smoker.co.uk Andy

    Yes, bloody good work. Keep it up. 

  • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

    That’s a fair point Frederick.  I think 1:10000 is a mistake.  In fact, the best reference for it is DEA Judge Francis Young who says that the TR of cannabis is “somewhere between 1:20000 and 1:40000.  It’s generally thought to be so high as to be difficult to be certain.

    http://legalizemarijuana.tumblr.com/post/501368686/this-is-a-graph-on-a-logarithmic-scale-cannabis

  • Anonymous

    Also Chapter one, verse twenty nine of Genesis would be a bit of a bitch to try to wriggle out of! Imagine how hypocritical it would be for those caught with or growing weed, to have to place their hand on the bible and swear by almighty god to give evidence of their debauched drug taking, while knowing that it was god himself who gifted ‘the herb bearing seed’ to mankind to consume.
    I’m at best an agnostic, but the irony and hypocrisy isn’t lost on me.

  • Bren

    As always Peter, your literary skills are first class! I just hope this buffoon reads it and digests it properly, but somehow I doubt it.

  • Cshaws

    Sod it! Having looked at the court report agiain I’m going to send my letter anyway. Eloquent as Peter’s but hopefully to the point.  I’ll publish it when I’ve had a reply (if I get one). 

  • Cshaws

    I posted my ‘complaint’ to QC Goldsack today 

    28-09-2011

    Dear Judge
    Goldsack

    Before
    you dismiss me as a crank I would like you to know that I am a
    law-abiding, well educated, 59 year old father of six. I have spent
    the last thirty years working for the MoD. I am generally a quite
    placid person but I am so angered and outraged by your reported
    comments and subsequent actions (which of course may be mis-reported)
    that, as a fully paid up member of UK Plc, I felt obliged to write
    and question your comments and actions.

    I
    would like to question comments you allegedly made in a Sheffield
    court of law earlier this month. Your words were reported in the
    Sheffield Star and have been widely published on-line.

    I
    will be referring to the Coronation Oath, the Oath of Allegiance and
    the Judicial Oath which are listed at the end of this letter.

    You
    are reported as saying: “Cannabis
    is a dangerous drug and those who bring it into existence must be
    punished.”

    Firstly
    I would like to challenge the first part of that statement. Could I
    please ask how you know that “Cannabis
    is a dangerous drug…..”
    and how you quantify this danger compared to other substances both
    legal and non-legal under current law. My belief is that the
    foundation of the judiciary in this country is based on the
    establishment of the truth based on facts (…the truth the whole
    truth and nothing but the truth) when applying justice. What
    established scientific facts do you have to support your assertion
    that cannabis is dangerous in the light of the massive, growing body
    of accredited scientific evidence to the contrary?

    Could you also explain to me how
    your sources sway your judgment as the mass of published evidence
    falls on the ‘not dangerous’ side of the fence. Nothing we
    consume can be regarded as totally safe – bread is dangerous to
    some – peanuts are dangerous to some. There is some evidence that
    cannabis ‘MAY’ be dangerous for a small proportion of young
    people (I think the statistic is .003% of users) but this is
    infinitesimal percentage compared to, for instance, alcohol which is
    a very dangerous drug, the victims of which you must see every day in
    your court room.

    If
    the ‘danger’ of cannabis is reason enough to impose instant
    incarceration of victimless (other than the tax payer) cannabis users
    then it is only logical that the same should happen to abusers of
    alcohol who have probably already ruined their own life, lost their
    job and impacted (or destroyed) their family (DS Fewkes cynical
    interpretation of success). But those consequences occur as a direct
    result of abuse of the drug itself. In the case of cannabis these
    consequences are a direct result of the law and can be avoided by the
    simple application of the ‘mercy’ promised by our Sovereign
    Lady Queen Elizabeth who you swore on oath to ‘well and truly serve’.
    You are obliged to show mercy but you don’t appear to pay any regard
    to this obligation. I can only interpret this as dereliction of duty
    on your part.

    Secondly
    I wish to challenge the second part of your statement “…..those
    who bring cannabis into existence must be punished.”
    I am, at best, an agnostic but I was brought up a Christian and in
    Genesis it states quite clearly.

    “And
    God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
    and the fruit
    tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
    in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”

    According
    to Christian tradition, god, the Almighty God in whose name you swore
    a judicial oath (although I accept you may have chosen the
    alternative judicial affirmation), created the herb yielding seed
    i.e. your god created cannabis sativa and is wholly responsible for
    ‘bringing it into existence’. If your assertion is to be believed
    and you wish to “…punish those who bring
    it into existence” you are setting yourself
    an extremely high judicial platform indeed.

    Detective
    Superintendent Richard Fewkes
    (presumably your expert witness) stated “A
    criminal conviction and jail is potentially going to ruin your life.
    It will potentially mean you lose your job and, if you are the
    breadwinner that will impact on your family. You will find it
    difficult in future when you come out of prison to find a job because
    you have got a criminal record, particularly in the current economic
    climate, and there is a stigma that will remain with you for the rest
    of your life.”

    So,
    in his words, it is not the cannabis plant that is dangerous it is
    the law that is dangerous. It is the law that destroys (otherwise
    law abiding) people’s lives. DS
    Fewkes also stated
    that “production
    could be linked to the downgrading of cannabis from a Class B to a
    Class C drug five years ago.“
    which demonstrates a worrying lack of knowledge on his part. When
    Cannabis was downgraded to Class C usage actually decreased. When it
    was re-classified, by Brown and Smith (wholly against scientific
    advice), to Class B usage increased.

    It
    seems you are basing your judgement on ‘facts’ which are, at the
    very best, highly disproportionate to the body of scientific evidence
    and, in the case of your expert witness, actually inaccurate. This
    makes your judgements neither ‘impartial’ nor, in my humble
    opinion, in compliance with the judicial oath “….I
    will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of
    this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”
    I’m sorry but I find it hard to interpret your stance
    as anything other than ‘ill will’ and not without a high degree
    of ‘affection’ (defined as prejudice in this context I believe).

    In
    addition to this, when you took up your role, you swore an Oath of
    Allegiance to the Queen. At her coronation she pledged to ensure
    ‘mercy’ in all her
    judgements. You have a vicarious duty, as the queen’s agent,
    underpinned by to your judicial oath, to ensure the application of
    that pledge. But the application of your personal opinion, in the
    case of cannabis charges, cannot, in any way, be interpreted as
    merciful. Your comments and actions are plainly ‘merciless’
    and totally
    contrary to the queen’s sworn obligation. As a consequence you are
    failing in your vicarious duty to apply mercy in your judgements on
    the citizens of this country.

    Where
    is the justice in this? Where are the victims of this ‘crime’
    that requires such punitive and destructive punishment? How do you
    justify your stance with regard to your sworn obligations?

    I
    enclose a copy of an informative report on the relative ‘harms’ of
    various commonly used drugs recently published in the Lancet, which
    may be of interest to you, especially figure 3.

    I
    look forward to hearing from you.

    Yours
    sincerely

    References:

    Coronation
    oath

    Archbishop:
    “Will
    you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in
    all your judgements?”
    Queen:
    “I
    will.”

    Oath
    of allegiance

    “I,
    _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear
    true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs
    and successors, according to law.”

    Judicial
    oath

    “I,
    _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve
    our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of
    ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws
    and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill
    will.”

  • Cshaws

    Bloody formatting gone to cock again.  hope your scroll buttons don’t overheat

  • http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

    Fantastic work.  I think you should press for a reply.

  • Cshaws

    I’ll probably a SWAT team 

  • Cshaws

    … get a SWAT team

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=668800965 Jonathan Bevan

    Stupid old fool, no wonder people lose respect for so called “authority”.

  • stickybud

    And if he’s a christian, he must believe in Jesus, whose healing ointment contained Kaneh Bosem, acknowledged by biblical scholars to be cannabis.

  • Twopac443

    Nicely put peter you are doing our country proud mist if the mPs abd older generation only know cannabis as a dangerous drug we need to show britain the real story about cannabis

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QHCJ5U67BRBWJM362FIT6UGOLU Stephen

    Here is a web-site which offers YOU a way to defend yourself against their unlawful court system!!! Please dowload the defense document and start defending yourselves.
    http://jforjustice.co.uk/