Wednesday, January 25, 2012 -

    Putting Peter Hitchens And Kathy Gyngell Straight About Cannabis

    Kathy Gyngell

    Kathy Gyngell is an ex-producer of downmarket daytime TV.  Now there’s nothing the matter with that at all.  I’ve produced some tacky video programmes myself that are best forgotten.

    What I do find a problem is that she now holds herself out as a “research fellow” at the pretentiously titled Centre for Policy Studies.  It’s often described as a right wing think tank but draw your own conclusions about it.  Any organisation that provides space for Ms Gyngell’s bigotry and falsehood dressed up in such disguise cannot be regarded as reputable.

    Peter Hitchens

    Unsurprisingly she delivered a shockingly prejudiced , inaccurate attack on the Sentencing Council’s drug offence guidelines in the Daily Mail.  See here. Then, who should pop up in rather paranoid panic but my friend Peter Hitchens.

    “Once again there are clear signs of organised abuse here. Who are these people? What are their motives? What is their interest in weakening the laws against drugs?”

    - Peter Hitchens, London, England

    I had to put Peter out of his misery and say how, for him, the news is truly dreadful:

    “Peter Hitchens,

    You are right.  It is happening.  From 27th February, if you are growing fewer than nine plants, particularly if you can demonstrate a medicinal use, then you are looking at a discharge, low level fine or, at worst, a low level community order.

    The CPS will not be interested.  Therefore the police will not be interested.

    Effectively, this is decriminalisation of small time, own use only, cultivation of cannabis.  It is wonderful news!

    You can be sure that CLEAR will be doing all it can to inform people and spread this wonderful news far and wide.

    Aside from the restoration of liberty, disgracefully proscribed for 80 years, now those who need cannabis as medicine, whose lives are transformed by its pallliative and restorative therapy, will have access to their medicine without fear of jail.

    These are wonderful developments, long overdue on grounds of justice, mercy and human rights.

    The truth about cannabis is CLEAR!”

    Peter Reynolds, Weymouth, UK

    Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

    Related news:

    1. Peter Reynolds -v- Peter Hitchens. This House Proposes A Regulated Market For Cannabis
    2. Kathy Gyngell – A Relic Destined For The Museum Of Prohibition
    3. Peter Hitchens Runs From the Cure
    4. Putting Cannabis “Research” Into Perspective
    5. Peter Reynolds Voted UK Politician Of The Year 2011
    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Ford/1450969824 Dan Ford

      Actually my head is spinning from this, I have to keep pinching myself to make sure I am still awake. Knocked out by the news doesn’t come close to describing how I’m feeling at the moment. We are on the path to a better future now.

    • Anonymous

      These are guidelines for courts, what of the Auton ruling? I really think people need to be very careful in drawing conclusions at the moment. We need to see how the courts will interpret this before jumping the gun.
      A person could read this article and get themselves in a lot of trouble.
      I am not being negative or having a go, I am just pointing something out.

    • Anonymous

      Is this to mean that if I were to grow 5 plants, either in my own home or in my garden, for the plant’s medicinal properties, then I should not expect to have my door kicked in by rampaging Police?

      Or, is more along the lines of, yes, I will still by terrorised by the Police breaking into my house, ran-sacking my home, stealing my money from my bank account and dragged out of my home in hand-cuffs in front of all my neighbours and then off to the station but I’d only get a warning/caution?  Doesn’t seem right if that is what will happen.  THEY commit the crime against me but I get a caution.  And back off to my home with broken door and trashed house and empty bank account and no medicinal plants and plenty of gossip spread about me by my neighbours.

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

      You are right to be cautious and everyone should make their own mind up because whatever these guidelines do, they do not change the law.

      However, any sentence outside these guidelines could be appealed on that basis alone.

      I am not a lawyer.  You must make up your own mind.  My view is based on discussion with close colleagues who are knowledgeable and experienced.

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

      I believe that the police will cease to have interests in such grows unless they have clear evidence that they are commercial.

      You must make up your own mind but that is my opinion based on reading the guidelines

    • Anonymous

      Thanks Pete!

    • Christopher

      These are sentencing guidelines that still recommend sending people to gaol for cannabis offences, why do Hitchen and Gyngell lie and say it is decriminalisation by the back door. I wish.

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

      I don’t think they are lying.  I think they’re right.  That’s exactly what it is – a policy crumbling away as it inevitably must.

      We are winning!

    • Anonymous

      The economy’s bust; it’s win-win!

    • Anonymous

      Peter would you please message me via email, jackgall93@hotmail.co.uk

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Hollick/545867468 Danny Hollick

      until the law is changed people are still going to buy from dealers, the risk of buying growing equipment and having it taken away is to high, and I for one wouldnt risk it.

      the guidlines are just guidlines and saying that the cps wouldnt bother you is rather foolish

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1846231417 Calum Tully

      As Peter said, They’ve started by going the back door which is the first step and the overall goal is to decriminalize all drugs

    • Anonymous

      As has been mentioned its only a guideline. But it does put home growers with no aggrevating circumstances and less than 9 plants right at the bottom of the judges drug sentencing priorities. Which is a huge step in the right direction at least.

    • Anonymous

      But will Goldsack stick to it?

      And would admitting you had read it lift you from the low to middle banding?

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

       Section 125(1) (a) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that:
      “Every court – (a) must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guideline which is relevant to the offender’s case, and (b) must, in exercising any other function relating to the sentencing of offenders, follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the exercise of the function, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.”

    • steve auvache

      It seems I am in something of a minority on this one.  As far as I can make out it is still possible to get 14 years for growing less than 9 plants for any use.

      That does not sound like a win to me.

    • Charlie Darling

      i agree ^ the law hasnt changed. the guidlines are just simply trying to appologise for recent un-just criminalisation of genuine medicinal users. they will still lock you up if your just a stoner interpreting these rules the wrong way. they wont take ‘i didnt know’ as an excuse !