Eddie Nestor, BBC Radio London

LISTEN HERE

Eddie Nestor’s Rumshop is a late night chat show based on the idea that in the Caribbean people would get together in the rumshop to discuss the issues of the day.  Eddie invited me on to discuss cannabis together with Marjorie Wallace of the mental health charity SANE.

Neither Eddie nor Marjorie were keen on hearing any facts or evidence.  Eddie even went so far as to say that he preferred to hear people’s experiences rather than listen to statistics.  Fair enough  but hardly a way to get at the truth!

Marjorie was actually very well informed about cannabis, so much so that she was very keen to stay away from the evidence about psychosis and stick to anecdote and scare story!

Actually I think the programme would have been far better without Eddie.  Marjorie and I could have done an excellent job without him!

Peter Reynolds, Radio London, Eddie Nestor’s Rumshop, 11th May 2012 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

So who do we need to focus on?

Certainly not on cannabis users.  Most have no wish to be represented.  Most simply want to be left alone to enjoy a quiet smoke or to alleviate whatever condition they suffer from in peace, without persecution or harassment.

CLEAR exists to advance an evidence-based argument to free, not “the weed”, but the people who choose, or need, to use it.

According to the most up-to-date, independent, expert research, there are three million regular users of cannabis in Britain.  That’s three million people who have used cannabis within the past month.  Just over 24,000 of them have the signed the HM Government e-petition calling for the legalisation of cannabis. It’s pathetic, isn’t it?

I believe those 24,000 people account for 80-90% of the “stoner” community, including medicinal and other activists such as you and me.  So where are the other 2.8 million?  In fact, where are the other 8 million occasional users?  Why aren’t these people standing up to be counted or, at least, ticking a box that says “legalise”?   Where are they? Are the figures wrong?

Divining the answers to these questions is the key to cannabis law reform.  It is the very essence of what CLEAR stands for.

We will make no progress by marches, demos, protests, “smoke outs”, not even by self-sacrificial martyrdom as exemplified by Winston Matthews, a gross injustice but a triumph of stupidity over reason.  A complete failure to recognise the way the argument needs to be put.

What we have to do is engage with government and with regulators.  We have to overturn the prejudice and misinformation of the media, which is why CLEAR’s work with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is so important.  Also, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is crucial for the approval of medicinal products and which CLEAR has been negotiating with for over a year.  The Home Office, which is perhaps the most corrupt of British institutions, cannot be dealt with rationally or reasonably but needs to be manipulated or outwitted in the direction of common sense.

The HASC drugs inquiry is the only route worth pursuing at present.  It is the only hope for reform.  I am delighted to announce  that CLEAR has been invited to submit special, additional evidence based on our representations about the way the inquiry is being conducted.  We are being heard.

If you are serious about reform of the prohibition of cannabis then CLEAR deserves your support.  Obviously, we oppose the “reefer madness” mentality but also the opposite “crazy stoner” extreme which denies any harm or negative consequence of cannabis use and believes that “protest” will achieve something.  It won’t.  It is a distraction into social events for smokers – a waste of time.

CLEAR speaks for the 2.8 million regular users as well as the 24,000 that have signed the petition.  We are your best hope.  Please join today.

So Where Now? Where Should Our Focus Be Most CLEAR? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Quite properly, anyone who drives whilst their judgement or motor skills are impaired should be taken off the road and there need to be deterrent punishments to ensure that such behaviour is prevented. However, any such law needs to be based on accurate and scientific measurement of impairment as our drink driving laws always have been.

Alcohol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines are all recognised by our body as poisons and so are excreted as quickly as possible. Cannabinoids, on the other hand, are natural substances compatible with our body chemistry and beneficial to health. For this reason our body retains them and they can be detected for many hours, days, weeks or even months after cannabis has been consumed, well after any impairment has worn off.

How are users of the prescription medicine Sativex going to be treated? If cannabinoids are detected in their system, are they going to be exempt from penalties or is there going to some distinction between licit and illicit cannabinoids – and how is this going to be determined?

What about users of prescription pain killers, tranquilisers, hay fever remedies and a host of other medicines which inarguably do cause impairment? How is the danger they cause going to be controlled?

At what level is having drugs in the system going to be an offence? We already allow some impairment through alcohol, the most dangerous drug of all. It is well established that at the current limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood there is already signifiicant impairment. Yet it seems that this proposed drug driving law is going to be far too simplistic. Any level at all of the drugs singled out (which may cause far less impairmnent than alcohol) will be an offence.

This proposal is for an unjust and unscientific law which discriminates against some drug users for reasons of prejudice and hatred. It has nothing to do with preventing accidents. It is about a weak government seeking to generate cheap, tabloid headlines.

The insurance industry already knows that cannabis users are safer drivers than drinkers: http://www.4autoinsurancequote.com/uncategorized/reasons-why-marijuana-users-are-safe-drivers/

Research from the US shows that where a regulated supply of cannabis is available traffic accidents and deaths from accidents are reduced: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/

Drug Driving Proposals Are Unjust, Unscientific And Dishonest - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Ray Charles

Ray Charles, a CLEAR member, received an unexpected visit from the police last September.  His partner had been falsely accused of a crime by her employer but in the course of the visit, the police discovered his grow tent which contained 100 seedlings, each 12 – 18 cm tall.

Ray’s grow was actually a joint venture between three friends.  Ray himself uses cannabis to treat his arthritis and one of his friends uses it to treat his MS.  They’d successfully harvested twice before producing between 15 and 18 ounces on each occasion which they shared between the three of them.

There were two hearings in Halifax Magistrates Court and Ray was sent to Bradford Crown Court for sentencing.  The CPS accepted the cannabis was for personal use and there was no question of supply or  distribution.

Yesterday, Friday 4th May, Ray stood before Judge Paul Isaacs to learn his fate.

Judge Isaacs, a Crown Court recorder, said he was “astounded” at the number of cannabis growing cases coming before him.  However he brushed aside the Crown’s assertion that Ray’s grow would have yielded up to a kilo and said his plants were “the cannabis equivalent of a bonsai tree”.

He then went on to say he was “…dismayed that these cases involving hard working normal folk are making it to Crown Court.  Why are they not being dealt with at the magistrates court?  It is costing the country fortunes”.  He referred to another case he had heard this week involving a teacher and said “…these folk are growing their own rather than fund criminality”.

Recorder Paul Isaacs

Judge Isaacs then sentenced Ray to a 12 month community order with 100 hours of unpaid work saying:  ”You must understand, and I hope the message goes out, even though it appears to be a victimless crime it is still against the law.”

The Halifax Courier reported the case here.

Ray Charles said: “I found Recorder Isaacs to be incredibly fair, impartial and in no way prejudiced by the ‘weed hysteria’.  He is a star. I will perform the community service without complaint.”

Judge Isaacs Accepts That Growing Your Own Is A Victimless Crime - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

A copy of the accounts may be downloaded here.

CLEAR Statement Of Accounts 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

 Is the Labour party about to announce a new drugs policy or does Ed just have no idea what it is?

Ed Miliband And A Bong - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

At the “Reefer Madness” end are the sad, bitter ProHos like Mary Brett and Debra Bell.  They are supported by a group of journalists, some of whom share the same views, others who are simply exploiting the subject for their career: Kathy Gyngell, Melanie Phillips, Simon Heffer,  Peter Hitchens, etc.  In the House of Commons they are represented by Charles Walker, Nadine Dorries and David Burrowes.

At the “Crazy Stoner” end are the sad, delusional fools who think that displaying their use of cannabis in public is somehow going to persuade our political leaders and the non-using majority that reform is a good idea.  They disrespect the fears and concerns of non-users and act as if defiance and bullying are ways to achieve change.  They adhere to the  idea that cannabis should be treated the same as carrots or tomatoes.  They have a few bloggers on their side who exist in the same haze of hopeless hippy hypocrisy: Sarah McCulloch, Steve Elliott, etc.  No one represents them in the House of Commons.

The CLEAR path to reform is responsible, evidence-based and sensitive even to the concerns of the extremists.  Writers such as Mark Easton, Tom Chivers, Derek Williams and Jason Reed support our policies.  They are represented in the House by Paul Flynn, Peter Lilley, Tom Brake, Julian Huppert, Bob Ainsworth and an ever-increasing number from all parties who are realising the truth about cannabis.

Pragmatism, respect, compromise and evidence are the CLEAR way forward.

.

Between “Reefer Madness” And “Crazy Stoner”, Is The CLEAR Path To Reform - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

HASC Drugs Inquiry

What has it heard so far?

From Sir Richard Branson: “Skunk is too strong”.

From Professor Clare Gerada: “Cannabis causes lung cancer. It causes oesophageal cancer. It causes failure at school.”.

From Kathy Gyngell: “Skunk causes psychosis”.

It hasn’t all been so negative.  Sir Richard did say that “normal marijuana”  (whatever that is), is safer than alcohol.  Professor Gerada said ““I don’t see a lot of problem cannabis users”.  Chip Somers, of Focus 12 rehab, said “cannabis is the one drug where you could make a case for legalisation”.

Overall though, the evidence about cannabis has been negative, incomplete and lacking in knowledge and expertise.  The inquiry is making the dreadful mistake of lumping all drugs together as one.  Where is the evidence about the medicinal use of cannabis or about regulation, as an alternative to prohibition or legalisation?

If the inquiry fails to hear evidence on these issues then it will be a serious mistake.

Transform is due to give evidence next week so we can expect the regulation argument to get a hearing.  But Transform has a blind spot about medicinal cannabis and its policy forces it to lump all drugs together as one.  It has no appreciation of the unique nature of cannabis.  No other drug is so relatively harmless and has so much positive therapeutic value.  Many millions of British citizens use cannabis responsibly with no negative impact on themselves or society in general.  These facts are not being considered by the inquiry.

That so much of the written evidence has addressed these issues but none is being brought forward in the oral evidence is strange, to say the least.  It smacks of censorship, of a predetermination of what evidence the inquiry wants to hear.

I have written to Keith Vaz again, asking him, again, to call me to give evidence.  I am not optimistic that he will.  I fear that he does not want to hear what I have to say.  Even more, he does  not want the truth about the Home Office’s disinformation and corrupt relationship with GW Pharmaceuticals to be aired.

In a few short sentences, with a few simple facts and figures, I could blow apart the cover of lies and propaganda under which present cannabis policy hides.  I don’t think Mr Vaz has the courage to deal with that.  I don’t think he is interested in the truth.  I don’t think he has any ambition for this inquiry other than to raise his personal profile and enhance his career.

I hope I am wrong.  However, more importantly, what can we do?

If Vaz does subvert the purpose of this inquiry for his own self-aggrandisement, then our aim must be to make it the biggest mistake of his career.  Far, far better would be to make him see sense, take responsibility and perform his role with integrity and honour.   To that end, I urge all CLEAR supporters to write to Vaz and demand that he calls expert evidence on cannabis.

Write to him here:

vazk@parliament.uk

Copy your email to all members of the  Home Affairs select committee by pasting these email addresses into the “cc” field.

winnickd@parliament.uk ; mark.reckless.mp@parliament.uk ; bridget.phillipson.mp@parliament.uk ; alunmichaelmp@parliament.uk ; mccabes@parliament.uk ; julian.huppert.mp@parliament.uk ; lorraine.fullbrook.mp@parliament.uk ; michael.ellis.mp@parliament.uk ; tilleye@parliament.uk ; nicola.blackwood.mp@parliament.uk ; homeaffcom@parliament.uk

The Drugs Inquiry Must Hear The Truth About Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Thank you to everyone who took part in the confidence vote, whichever way you voted.   It is right that the membership has had its say after all the turmoil we have been through.

Thank you for your vote of confidence.  I will not let you down.  I will continue to fight every day to end the prohibition of cannabis, most urgently for those who need it as medicine.  I will do everything within my power to advance our cause.

Thank you also to Janice Wells, our party treasurer and secretary who took on the task of administering, triple checking and counting the votes.  She has done sterling work with great integrity and with the members’ interests paramount.

Now we move on.  We leave behind the haters and hypocrites, the moaners and complainers, those who only appear to bicker and argue and are never there when work needs to be done.  They are not welcome in CLEAR.

We will continue to have a zero tolerance policy about bickering and trolling, both on the Facebook page and the website.  Their purpose is to advance the campaign, nothing else.  Members can raise any issue they want to in the forum and administrative issues should be dealt with by email or Facebook message.  We will not see our online presence abused by those who wish to interfere with or subvert our work.

As spring arrives the Cannabis Truth roadshow is making plans.  We will be taking the truth about cannabis to the streets of Britain.  We have plans for new literature and new campaigns.  We still don’t know how the HASC drugs inquiry will unfold.  The Comment Warriors campaign continues to do good work every day.

CLEAR is making a difference as no other cannabis campaign ever has.  We welcome all who want to join with us.  We are the responsible, professional, effective voice for cannabis in Britain, now stronger than ever.

Moving On - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

For: 236 votes   Against: 101 votes

Total Votes: 337

Turnout: 42%

Majority: 70%

Peter Reynolds Wins CLEAR Leadership Mandate - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Russell Brand entered dressed somewhere between a cowboy, a pirate and a clown.

He is a man of fine intellect but his eccentricity is what brings the press flocking to him. It is the reason that Keith Vaz called him (even if towards the end he found it difficult to disguise his distaste).

I can only admire Brand’s ability to exploit to his advantage every circumstance he finds himself in. He is fine entertainment and talks some very good sense but always with a bizarre twist.

Mary Brett could not be a greater contrast. A straightlaced school mistress to the conservative side of prudish would be a generous verdict. She is of another age, another dimension and another version of what is “truth”. Her perfomance as a witness was embarrassing. You only have to look at her website Cannabis Skunk Sense to see how sadly misguided she is. In many ways she is a fine advocate for our cause because she personifies how ridiculous and inept is our opposition.

Kathy Gyngell is, I am afraid, a different kettle of fish. She has no integrity. Her apparently meausred contribution is a contrivance. She always descends, in the end, to hysteria, to moralising, to prejudice. She did indeed utter the tripe: “skunk causes psychosis” that no scientist, not even our most fervent opponents will confirm.

Peter Hitchens was Peter Hitchens. At least he is consistent, rational and coherent. It is no secret that I rather like Peter, even if we disagree fundamentally on this issue. I spoke to him and wished him good luck yesterday evening and proposed that we should get together for a custard pie fight. He told me he couldn’t trust what I might put in the custard.

In summary, I think the ProHos put on a very poor show. If I am given the opportunity to put our case, I know I can demolish their arguments completely – although whether the committee would listen is entirely another question.

Transform has been invited to give evidence on 1st May which is good news . I know that whoever speaks will give a good account from our side, although sadly, they will never advance the unique and beneficial aspects of cannabis.  The lack of any evidence at all so far about medicinal cannabis is a glaring omission which Vaz must do something about.  If not, it will come back to haunt him.

So, where we go from here remains to be seen. Members of the committee dropped hints today about it being a “long inquiry”. There may be much more to come, or not. Why Vaz doesn’t publish some sort of methodology or process is of most concern. The inquiry is part of our democratic process and I believe we have a right to see it being exercised responsibly, effectively and fairly.  At present it seems to fall well short of that.

HASC Drugs Inquiry – Russell And The Three Stooges - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Expert Witness?

Russell Brand is to give evidence followed by the unholy trinity of Mary Brett,  Kathy Gyngell and Peter Hitchens.

What qualification Mr Brand has other than his celebrity is difficult to see.  Hundreds of thousands of other British citizens have battled addiction under the great immoral policy of prohibition and they did not have the advantage of huge wealth to help them through.  Mr Vaz seems to have a fondness for associating himself with celebrities.

Even more worrying are Mr Vaz’ words “We have heard previously from those who support the decriminalisation of drugs. I look forward to hearing from those who oppose this measure.” as justification for inviting the three most extremist prohibitionists in Britain to give evidence.  It is like asking the BNP and the  EDL to give evidence about immigration.

And who are “those who support the decriminalisation of drugs” from whom “we have heard previously”?  Richard Branson, who candidly admitted he is “no expert”?  Hardly a match for three of the most seasoned propagandists in the business!  And where is any evidence about the medicinal use of cannabis, a subject of great importance to hundreds of thousands of British citizens?

Keith Vaz MP

One of the fundamental problems with the inquiry is that no programme, schedule or process has been announced.  I have repeatedly asked the committee’s admin team what is the next step but they do not know.  It seems that everything is done merely on the whim of Mr Vaz.  Therefore, we do not know if he is planning to call any of the very well informed expert witnesses who contributed to the 80% of written submissions that call for reform.  It doesn’t look good though. It seems that Mr Vaz has made his mind up and that the outcome of this inquiry was predetermined.  Perhaps it is just a sop to public opinion, sprinkled with a few celebrities to get press coverage, designed to mislead the public into believing this important subject has been properly examined.

I have written to Mr Vaz and the other members of the committee in private expressing my concerns in much more detail. I have asked him for urgent reassurance that the inquiry will hear evidence on an impartial basis and that there will be at least a semblance of fairness in the selection of witnesses.

HASC Drugs Inquiry – Evidence Or Spin? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Vote Brian Paddick For London Mayor - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 2

In the final part of this series I will continue to point to the submissions worth reading, both highlights and lowlights.

You can download the 731 pages of written evidence here.

Paul Sax, at 97, presents an eloquent argument about the  failure to control alcohol and tobacco under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Dr Mark Monaghan, at 102, from the University of Leeds, analyses how policymakers pick and choose the evidence that suits their own opinions.  He argues that while drugs policy remains within the Home Office, it will always be regarded as an issue of criminal justice.

Steve Rolles, at 127, from Transform, cites himself and his colleagues as evidence more than any independent source but makes some powerful points, particularly at 6.2, where he exposes the dishonest language and “standardised wording” in government responses to calls for reform.

Darryl Bickler, at 130, of the Drug Equality Alliance, herewith, the aforesaid doth present his pleadings in the most arcane language whilst arguing that language is the root of all failings in drugs policy!

Professor Jake Chapman, at 136, presents a fascinating analysis of the way that drug policy is formulated and discussed.  He is an expert in “systems thinking” and demonstrates how a rational and ordered approach to policy making would be of enormous benefit.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), at 162, of course favours the status quo which provides employment and power for its members.  Its submission focuses mainly on the reduction in police budgets and the issue of legal highs.  However, in one of the most revealing statements in all 731 pages of written evidence, ACPO says:

“…the police will continue to focus their energies on serious criminality and take a less robust enforcement approach on matters relating to personal possession. The recently published guidelines from the Sentencing Council tend to endorse this approach.”

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), at 170, walks its usual tightrope between what the evidence says and what its masters at the Home Office want to hear.  It makes an excellent case for decriminalisation but then says “that the possession of drugs is a criminal offence and should remain a criminal offence.”

There are many other submissions of interest.  80% are in favour of reform and there is some very eloquent and heartfelt testimony from people who have suffered under the great immoral evil of prohibition.  Just 20%, 34 out of 171 submissions support the status quo and many of those are simply out of self interest.

The truth is that we have won the argument.  It is just a question of how long it will take our cowardly politicians to take responsibility and do the right thing.

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 3 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

This inquiry is the best chance we have had for drug law reform since the last one in 2002!

That eager young backbencher David Cameron, then a member of the committee, was in the first flush of enthusiasm of his political career:

“We need fresh thinking and a new approach towards drugs policy…it would be disappointing if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at”. 

David  Cameron, 2002

So the 2002 report was largely ignored but I think we have more grounds for optimism this time.

It’s extraordinary, if you think about it, how the inquiry’s “terms of reference” are a knee jerk response to Sir Richard Branson and the Global Commission on Drugs Policy.  That Sir Richard, cool dude that he is, can command such response from government is a sad indictment of celebrity culture and the way that our politicians respond to it. He is an extremely able man but as he has confessed publicly, bless him, he is no expert on drugs policy.

There are 731 pages of written evidence and 171 submissions to the inquiry.   80% are opposed to prohibition and demanding reform.  If the committee bases its recommendations on the written evidence and parliament acts on them, then prohibition will be prohibited tomorrow.

Sadly, I don’t think it will be as easy as that!

CLEAR is having a huge impact on this inquiry.  Because of the efforts of individual members and supporters , out of 171 submissions, CLEAR evidence is cited in 49.  We are 29% of the argument.  We are the largest single contributor.

So, to the evidence itself.  You can download it here.  My aim is to point to the submissions worth reading.

Kathy Gyngell has cheated.  She is at 01 and also at 116.  I recommend that you read her.  To any reasonable person, her prejudice, spite and empty argument is self-evident.

Derek Williams, of UKCIA, at 14, is erudite as ever.  He argues convincingly that prohibition is no form of control and is an abdication of responsibility by government.

Mary Brett, at 21, of  Cannabis Skunk Sense, the sham charity, tries hard, too hard.  Her submission speaks for itself and what a sad, bitter woman she is.

Then, Roger Titcombe, at 36, with an hysterical “Reefer Madness ” submission reminds us what we are really fighting –  crazy, deluded prejudice.   That this man has been responsible for the care and education of children is very worrying.  His submission provides no evidence and cites  no authorities.  He just writes “I suspect…” and claims that cannabis is associated with extreme violence.  What sort of man is this who has pretended to educate children and then embarrasses himself with such a display of incompetence and prejudice?

Dr David Marjot, at 44, is a consultant psychiatrist with impressive credentials.  He argues that drug users are a “persecuted minority” and supports David Nutt’s assessment of risk in drug use and other life activities.

Stuart Harper, at 52, is a tireless campaigner, member of CLEAR and scourge of the Home Office.  His personal story is both moving and inspirational.  His submission is one of the best.  Do not miss it.

Dr Sue Bryce of the University of Nottingham, at 53, describes herself as a “reluctant legalizer” but her position arises out of personal experience of living with an addict and intensive study of drugs and addiction.

Phil Walsh, at 56, has become a fierce opponent of CLEAR in recent months but I give him great credit for his submission.  He knows his stuff and what is between us is misunderstanding.  We are entirely on the same side.

Tjalling Erkelens, the director of Bedrocan, at 75, should not be missed.  Bedrocan is the most advanced source of cannabinoid medicine in Europe, produced and marketed with unrivalled expertise but, most importantly, with integrity and patients’ interests at heart.

The University of Kent, at 77, is one of the most impressive submissions from academia.  It avoids the dreadful, pretentious “sociology speak” which so many of the academic and quasi-official bodies, such as UKDPC and Drugscope, fall victim to.  It is worth reading instead of just being a collection of jargon and meaningless phrases.

In forthcoming parts of this series, I will highlight further submissions which are worth reading.

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 3

HASC Drugs Inquiry. An Analysis Of The Written Evidence. Part 2 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party