Sheffield Police And Judge Engaged In ‘Brutal Terrorism’ Against The Public

    Press Release

    For immediate release 31st October 2011

    Sheffield Police And Judge Engaged In ‘Brutal Terrorism’ Against The Public

    The Sheffield police and Judge Alan Goldsack QC, recorder of Sheffield, are promoting false science, misinformation, prejudice and discrimination against people who use cannabis.

    According to independent research, based on national averages and official population statistics, 138,000 people in Sheffield will use cannabis in their lifetime and more than 33,000 use it regularly (at least once per month).

    Judge Alan Goldsack QC has said that “cannabis is a dangerous drug” but there is no basis in science or medicine for this claim. According to Professor Les Iversen, the government’s chief drugs advisor, cannabis is “one of the safer recreational drugs”. Based on a recent analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis, cannabis is nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol, safer than virtually all other recreational drugs, OTC and POM medicines and less toxic than many common foodstuffs.

    Acting Detective Chief Inspector Bob Chapman has said that “The strength of some of the skunk cannabis on sale is, in my opinion, of a strength comparable to Class A rather than Class B drugs.”. This is a reckless, misleading and false statement which has no basis in science or medicine.

    Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) has lodged a formal complaint to the Office of Judicial Complaints about Judge Goldsack and to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about Acting DCI Chapman.

    Peter Reynolds, leader of CLEAR, said:

    “It is astonishing that people like Judge Goldsack and Acting DCI Chapman should be making such irresponsible statements. These are not matters of opinion but matters that are determined by scientific evidence. These statements demonstrate ignorance and prejudice in people who should know better.”

    DCI Chapman was responsible for a “Cannabis Action Week” in the last week of October which resulted in 15 arrests and the seizure of an alleged £50,000 worth of cannabis. In response, CLEAR has announced a “Cannabis Truth Week” which will offer information on the scientific and medical facts about cannabis. This will start with the appearance of Howard Marks, “Mr Nice”, at the Foundry, Sheffield University on Saturday 12th November. CLEAR will be bringing the Cannabis Truth roadshow to Sheffield throughout the week. There will also be a public debate held in a central location. Sheffield MPs Nick Clegg and David Blunkett, both of whom advocate a safer, more responsible policy of legal regulation of cannabis have been invited. Scientific and medical experts will be present as will a number of people who use cannabis as medicine to treat conditions such as MS and Crohn’s. Sheffield police have also been invited to attend.

    Peter Reynolds said:

    “CLEAR is standing up for tens of thousands of reasonable, responsible and respectable Sheffield citizens who are under attack with lies and misinformation in a campaign that seeks to terrorise them in the most brutal and threatening way.

    The laws that prohibit cannabis are in direct contradiction to science, medicine and all available evidence on public health, harm reduction and effective drugs policy. We accept that Judge Goldsack and the police have a duty to uphold the present law but not by the promotion of untruths, false science and terror tactics

    Is there not a dangerous drug problem in Sheffield with alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine? Why is so much public money being wasted on cannabis with paedophilia and violent assault being treated more leniently in the courts?”

    ENDS

    For more information or to arrange an interview please contact:

    Peter Reynolds – peterreynolds@clear-uk.org +44(0)788 0872022

    www.clear-uk.org

    P.O.Box 674, Salfords, REDHILL, Surrey, RH1 1BN

    • http://twitter.com/ianvisits IanVisits

      If you want to argue in favour of facts based legislation, can I suggest you start with your own headline?

      Unless you think an actual act of terrorism has taken place – and if so, have you informed the emergency services of the terrorist attack so that they can offer hospital treatment to the victims?

    • martyn

      if you dont think the actions of these so called governments is terrorism you arent living in reality

    • Cshaws

      Trying to scare (terrorise) people by abuse of judicial power and application of brutal sentences is corporate terrorism.  

      Wiki “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper deThere is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the properdefinition of the word “terrorism” Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of “terrorism”. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged word ‘terrorism’. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of “terrorism”. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged”
      So, in the case of Goldsack, I think it is very appropriate.  He even stated that he wanted  to punish those responsible ‘for bringing cannabis into existence’.  That would be god then ! (his, not mine)

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

      Ian, perhaps you should check a dictionary?

      ter·ror·ism? ?[ter-uh-riz-uhm] noun

      1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

      2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

      3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

      Also “facts” based legislation is a rather naive idea. Scientists seldom agree on what is a fact. Perhaps you mean “evidence based”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bengt-Erixon/564181514 Bengt Erixon

      @IanVisit, “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word “terrorism”.[1][2]
      Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions
      of “terrorism”. Moreover, the international community has been slow to
      formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged” Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism  Other then that i would have to agree with Mr Reynolds, it´s an awful crime against humanity and in my book borders to terrorism.