I think that, with the strong decisions made whilst drawing up the new guidelines, the judiciary could have now made a way for individuals to speak out and show their true strength in daring to try a different solution. The Home Office and Government can now go for the sensible approach that works in other countries, without appearing weak.

Peter, I would be interested in hearing what your legal advisors think about the possibility of future legal accountability for those in government, past and present, who have lied in order to deceive the public about cannabis.

Aside from the fact that cannabis causes no harm to the individual or society, the endocannabinoid system has been known about for nearly 25 years, and it has been in the public domain for decades that the herb is a valuable medicine for treating a wide range of ailments. Coupled with the fact that most other governments in Europe allow its legal medical use, and with further discoveries about its ability to destroy cancer cells, I feel that these people must be on dodgy ground when one considers the human rights implications.

Together with CLEAR’s efforts to inform the public, I feel that ‘Run From The Cure’ and ‘What If Cannabis Cured Cancer?’ will get seen eventually by enough people for the game to be well-and-truly up, and then many of them will be asking questions about who knew what, and when. Ignorance is no excuse under the law, anyway, but one would expect those in power to be informed of the facts when they are making claims and decisions that affect the lives of ordinary people.

What I am getting at is, would it be helpful to point out to Cameron et al that they may, one day, be called to account for why they denied cancer patients a safe, natural treatment, used by the body itself, and instead gave them realistically no other choice but the barely-effective immune system-destroying treatments approved by the NHS?

 Now is as good a time as any to revisit this question and the answer should be what it has always been, “Truth and Reconciliation.”

All Clear has ever asked is that They be honest with us. Once they have ‘fessed up and promised never to do it again we can move on.

Fair enough if someone has committed murder there may be questions that need answering but if all they have done is taken a huge bung then paying the tax due should be an end to it.

Until then they are fair game.

I suppose that the trick is to invite these people into the conversation.

Not just Cannabis but prohibition of every drug in the world is currently under discussion all over the world and the proposal is to totally dismantle the current system from producer to consumer.  That is a huge business to just send to landfill, we should be thinking of recycling some of the more useful bits and those currently involved are best placed to offer ideas that apply to their interests.

In the last 12 months there has been a huge change in media treatment of Cannabis in the UK.  Blame the Comment Warriors.  It becomes easier now for them to start discussing how we are going to legislate so that your local could have a toking zone.

What happens to people expecting pensions from the CIA is not our concern but letting the Licensed Victuallers Association know we are on their side would hurt neither of us.