It causes far more harm than it prevents.  It is based on prejudice and discrimination.  Science, medicine and all the evidence shows that regulation is the only rational policy.

We have won the argument.  There are now two more steps we must take before change can happen.  Firstly we must defeat the prohibitionists, the ProHos, and their vested interests.  Secondly we must find our cowardly, hypocritical politicians a way to save face in reversing the disastrous policy they have pursued for so long.

Judge Goldsack, the brute of Sheffield

Martin Barriuso

The ProHos are fighting a  desperate rearguard action.  The DEA crackdown on medical marijuana, the frenzied scaremongering of the right wing Australian press, the panic stricken lies and blatant falsification of scientific evidence by the Daily Mail.  The vicious and disproportionate campaign by the Sheffield police and judiciary. In Spain this week, Martin Barriuso, president of the Federation of Cannabis Associations was arrested and held without bail just as he was about to travel to London to present the cannabis social clubs concept in the House of Lords.

Skunk

Don’t doubt that the DEA is behind all this.  It is an autonomous, extrajudicial army that answers to no one, certainly not the US president.  It is in cahoots with GW Pharmaceuticals  which last week released clinical trials data showing that its super-strong, super-concentrated skunk cannabis medicine Sativex is safe and non-addictive.  The medical marijuana industry in the US is taking off.  Israel and all of Europe except Britain and France are recognising the immense value of medicinal cannabis.  The Portugal experiment has now run for more than 10 years and is a resounding success.  The DEA is panicking.  An awful lot of drug war soldiers are going to be redundant soon.  Some very fat cats are about to spill their last saucer of cream.

Michelle Leonhart, DEA

Melanie Phillips, Tabloid ProHo

The vile Melanie Phillips reveals her own panic in an absurd diatribe in today’s Daily Mail.  A deluge of statistics clogs her article, even relegating her usual hatred and prejudice to second place.  Does she really think that the average delusional Daily Mail reader is going to read them, or that anyone else will believe her cooking of the books?

We are winning.   These are the death throes of the most destructive and evil policy that the world has ever seen.  Expect more violent reaction.  Expect more cowardice from Cameron, whoever is Home Secretary and from the mendacious Daily Mail and its stooges.  Expect more misinformation and deceit from Home Office civil servants.  Expect more propaganda and misconduct from police officers and judges  that see their multi-billion pound gravy train coming to an end.  Expect more bribes and under the counter funding from Big Booze and Big Pharma.  Expect more numpty politicians like Charles Walker, Alan Johnson and Nadine Dorries to do everything they can to scare and mislead the public.

Expect all of this and more.  But know that all of this is because we are winning!

The ProHos Are Losing And They’re Fighting Like Alley Cats - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

By Colin Preece

Chris Huhne has said his electricity white paper and renewables proposals of July 2011 add up to the greatest transformation of energy since the privatisation of the energy industry.

This half hearted white paper lacks the vision of community development at a local level, nationally.  Huhne however, is intent on remaining silent concerning the sustainable power potential of cannabis hemp.

The need is clear for a sustainable, zero carbon hemp crop to be grown in abundance where hemp can be processed into potentially zero carbon power.  Currently six power plants could burn hemp for power in the UK.  Only one has ever operated in the black.  Hard pressed farmers within a 50 mile radius of these plants could be growing hemp and be reaping an extra annual income.  Ten hemp seeds could be given away at garden centres to educated gardeners and at the end of the growing season, collection points could be provided for transportation to power plants. Schools and parks could be utilised, educating our children in the whole cannabis hemp truth, from its 8000 year old history, its biology, physics and chemistry, through to the farce that is prohibition and the crime prohibition has always caused, proving politicians learn nothing from history. Schools and parks could become local collection points.  There is a need for the nation to be enlightened and the documentary….WHEN WE GROW, must be televised on all terrestial channels.

Huhne’s ambition for power reform is said to be transformative and it is also said to include some sensible regulatory measures, proving the energy and climate department (DECC) does not share in the deregulatory zeal that dominates several other departments (including DEFRA).

UK energy policy over recent decades shows political ambition has never really led to significant change.  Regular speeches from politicians extolling renewables and numerous plans still leave the UK third from bottom in the European league table of energy from renewable sources. The EU fails miserably in informing European citizens on the attributes of cannabis hemp.  For what they are worth, the rudimentary plans, in current jargon, the roadmaps, need delivery, which will be costly.

Some commentators say: the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments appear serious in intent. However the potential role of local government and local community awareness is overlooked in DECC’s publications.  Elsewhere in Europe and also in parts of North America local government has led to only a limited energy transformation.

Electricity Market Reform

The electricity market reform has four key measures (ENDs Report, July 2011).

The first, a feed-in tariff contract for difference, involves a mechanism to provide low-carbon electricity generators with long-term contracts and guaranteed prices.  This insulates the low carbon generator from very low wholesale prices.  It is a sensible approach which will support renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and new nuclear.   However hemp is a renewable, sustainable crop, which can be utilised for power and CCS.  CCS is also achieved in solid hemp products ranging from babies nappies to housing. In the case of new nuclear the public fear of a melt down remains and disposal of waste will be much more than a concern for future generations.

The second measure, an Emissions Performance Standard for fossil fuel power stations, has been set at a level which can be met by a new gas-fired power station without CCS.  It is debatable this level will ever really reduce carbon emissions overall.

There is however a danger that this will encourage a ‘gas rush’ which could potentially, drive up the cost of gas to the consumer. Gas stations only emit about half the greenhouse gases of coal stations per unit of electricity but they are not low-carbon enough.  Roughly, gas processing is four times as carbon-heavy as nuclear stations and 16 times as carbon-heavy as wind. The white paper states: “It is clear that fossil fuels without CCS, especially gas, will also continue to have a key role to play in the coming years.”  So fossil fuel energy without CCS, which should be standard in all fossil fuel plants, is being completely disregarded in the white paper.  Hemp grown locally, nationally, is needed in order to minimise the use of all higher carbon footprint energy sources.

The third measure, a carbon floor price, was announced in the Budget this spring.  A floor price will be more effective than the EU emissions trading scheme has been in triggering investment in new low-carbon plant according to the white paper. Nevertheless it is unlikely that a price of £30 per tonne (if Treasury target price for 2020 is reached) would be enough to channel serious investment into low-carbon options, thus making budget power plans from renewable sources far less likely.

The fourth and last key measure, capacity payments, will give money to generators simply for having capacity available, whether or not it is actually used.  This is intended to ensure that there are power stations available to keep the lights on when intermittent sources, sun or wind, generate small amounts of electric.  This will favour gas stations, since these can be turned on and off more easily than coal or nuclear stations.  Unfortunately for the consumer again the already expanded importation of liquefied gas will drive up its price to the consumer while also increasing carbon footprint in transportation.

So another dash for gas is a real danger. The present administration and the Labour government before the Con-Lib coalition gave planning consent for many new gas stations without either CCS or combined heat and power.  Is this an act of truly endeavouring to lower the UK’s carbon emissions?

There is some encouraging text in the white paper about demand-side projects such as electrical energy being allowed to bid into the capacity mechanism. DECC is also prodding Ofgem to ensure better liquidity in the market.  This could enable smaller generators and suppliers the ability to compete in the energy market.  A hemp power industry should be part of any government’s drive toward lowering the carbon emissions of not only the UK but all nations.

Renewables Roadmap

The new renewables roadmap is supposed to be an encouraging document, according to many commentators.  It begins by stating that the Government’s aim is to meet the UK’s target under the EU renewables directive, which is to get 15% of total energy (electricity, heat, transport fuel) from renewables by 2020.  This directive is far from being achievable without the utilisation of hemp and the fact some scientists say climate change (global warming) will become irreversible by 2015 makes a goal of 15% by 2020 laughable, if it was not so potentially cataclysmic.

Last year the UK generated 3.3% from renewables. Therefore a  five-fold increase in less than a decade is needed.  Hemp should be allowed to become the five fold increase, plus!  Again some commentators say the Government should be commended for sticking to the target, even though the Conservatives are far from being keen concerning EU rules and regulations and right-of-centre think tanks such as Policy Exchange are arguing the renewables target should be renegotiated and in so doing they continue to threaten the future of our children.

The document lists eight technologies.  The Con-Libs believe it will help the UK to meet the target and puts particular emphasis on offshore wind.  They favour 18 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2020. The UK currently has 1.5GW of offshore wind in operation and 2GW under construction.

The political attractions of offshore are obvious for a government which favours rural electors voting in the ballot box for them.  Wind turbines do not bode well with those that have been forced to live with them.  Fellow citizens living in rural areas do not wish to live with them yet all governments have failed to inform country folk of the versatility of hemp for the rural economy and job creation.

Offshore wind farms are more difficult and more expensive to construct than onshore ones.  £300 million has been invested for almost 300 turbines in Scotland.  This can not be considered cheap, especially when only 300 jobs were created, so what exactly is the cost of constructing 18 gigawatts of offshore electricity before 2020?

The government is setting up a task force with industry to identify ways to bring offshore costs down. An obvious starting point would be to build ships to take the turbines out and install them but the building of these ships would cause there to be high emissions in construction, thus minimising the benefits of them in the first place.  The ideal option would be ships constructed out of plastic processed from the hemp plant.  “There is not enough land”, rings out the shout from all opposition to hemp but there is far more land suitable for hemp cultivation globally in semi arid regions unfit for conventional crops.

Land-use planning is the main reason why the UK has done so badly so far on renewables.  In 2002, in excess of 100,000 hectares of land, unfit for conventional crops but suitable for hemp, lay neglected, along with 32,000 hectares of fallow land.  Hemp is a fallow field crop!

Lack of access to the electricity grid especially in mid-Wales and lack of regulatory stability puts up the cost, making development capital from investors unlikely.  However, carbonised hemp, a by product of ethanol fuel could be burnt in conventional power plants.  Although emitting carbon from plant matter, an annual cycle is in operation, taking carbon out of the system, while the plants are growing but returning that carbon back, year in year out.  Ethanol could then be used in local transport.

The SNP has done well on the electricity grid by giving permission for the construction of the Beauly-Denny line down the centre of Scotland.  The UK and Welsh governments should follow this example.  However if hemp was to be locally mass cultivated in the UK there would be no need for costly massive extensions of the grid but only a need for more ethanol plants supplying conventional coal burning power plants with carbonised hemp.  Sulphur emissions have always been a contributing factor to coal burning but with carbonised hemp there is no sulphur.

The regulatory stability of the UK has been damaged by the ongoing debate between the renewables obligation and the German approach of a Feed-in Tariff. Ed Miliband seemed to have ended this discussion when as energy secretary he accepted the two approaches could be combined: renewables obligation for large infrastructure and feed-in tariff for small.

The coalition said that it would stick with this approach but reintroduced all the regulatory instability, proposing a contract for difference approach. The roadmap does recognise the danger and proposes transitional arrangements. It is not clear these will be sufficient to deliver regulatory certainty.  The Con-Lib coalition, on a whim and a prayer, only believe transitional arrangements will address the problem.

An essential means to maximising regulatory certainty and increasing the chances of meeting the 2020 target is to avoid unnecessary delays.  All parties seem to be rowing together in the electricity market reform and implementation should be passed in Parliament through primary legislation. However there are consultations to carry out which can and often have in the past caused unnecessary delays in implementation.

The main weakness of both the renewables roadmap and the electricity market reform white paper is the lack of articulation of the potential role of local government.

In August 2010, Huhne announced that local government would be allowed to sell renewable electricity – they had previously been banned from selling electricity so they would not ‘complicate’ the privatisation of the CEGB back in the 1980s. In early July 2011 Huhne met with new electricity suppliers, including Co-Op Energy and renewable generators such as Good Energy and Ecotricity. After the meeting he said “we need more suppliers” beyond the existing “big six”.

With local government being allowed to produce renewable electricity there is an obvious resource to provide it, hemp!  Ethanol plants built in close proximity to conventional coal burning plants could provide fuel for local transport systems and the by product, carbonised plant matter of all kinds including hemp could and should be used in conventional coal burning plants.  As far as the private sector is concerned, although the providers seem to be in competition, there is always the likelihood of those providers working together, in order to keep costs to the consumer higher than they need to be, thus excessively rewarding shareholders for doing nothing other than investing.

In parts of Europe, notably Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, parts of the USA and Canada, local government has become a major player in both energy efficiency and energy supply.

Local governments, community organisations and co-operatives are achieving many admirable things.  Local opposition has been overcome because they do not have to pay shareholders and lower tariff charges enable cheaper power. UK policymakers seem to know next to nothing about these notable exceptions, in effect, making these policy makers unfit for purpose.

For six years, Chris Huhne was a member of the European Parliament and some commentators say he can not be fairly be accused of not knowing what is happening. Other DECC ministers also seem conscious that the UK has much to learn from other countries but all ministers, from the PM down, refuse to acknowledge the versatility of hemp as a sustainable biomass resource.

Plans to help UK local government become energy and climate leaders, learning the lessons of their continental and North American counterparts, are under preparation by DECC officials and will be published soon but again, hemp as a biomass resource for electricity, which could and should be locally and nationally cultivated will not even get a mention.

The meerkat in the commercial on TV says it all, with one suck of his teeth and one single word.  To neglect a biomass resource like hemp reveals our energy policy makers as just too scared to admit the whole cannabis hemp truth to a UK electorate who, through no fault of their own, have always been, ill-informed.

Simples.

An Energy White Paper With No Mention Of Hemp - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Justice Minister Opstelten wants to quickly introduce the Weedpass first in the border cities, with the rest of the country following suit, introducing the Weedpass ‘nationwide’.

Nationwide introduction of the Weedpass is impossible, because only 101 of Holland’s’ 441 municipalities allow coffeeshops, the smokers in the 340 villages and towns without coffeeshops have been buying on the black market for decades now. The Weedpass will be for local use only, so the smokers from municipalities without coffeeshops will not be able to apply for the Weedpass, they will keep buying from street dealers, for them, and their suppliers, nothing will change.

The only solution to get rid of the cannabis tourism in our border areas would be the introduction of cannabis outlets in Germany, Belgium, France and the UK, so they do not have to come to Dutch coffeeshops any more. This is not a stupid proposal, and it is no longer forbidden in European politics: http://coffeeshopnews.nl/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=0&func=view&catid=7&id=1195

My guess is the EU came out with this news because of the hype around the Weedpass, and the verdict of the European Court, allowing the Dutch Weedpass technically, because drugs, including cannabis, are considered illegal in EU countries – http://coffeeshopnews.nl/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=0&func=view&catid=7&id=1233

I think this ruling is made by looking at EU countries in general, but the Netherlanders have a right to use drugs in their country, by exercising their ‘ right to a rush’ (RECHT OP ROES), allowing an individual to use any substance he/she chooses to explore.

The Schengen agreement states that every EU citizen has the same rights as the citizens of the EU country he/she is visiting, named as free traffic between EU countries and the free exchange of goods and knowledge between these countries.

If any Dutch person has the ‘right to a rush’, how can we deny our co-EU citizens this right? I bet the EU Court never even heard of this right. In Holland it is allowed to use drugs, it is illegal to sell drugs, except for the 666 tolerated cannabis coffeeshops.

The hype around the Weedpass will soon come to an end, the City Council of Maastricht, the City that was supposed to run a Weedpass pilot, rejects the Weedpass and are to change the Local Law in order to make it impossible to introduce the Weedpass in Maastricht, ever. Researchers of the COT and the University of Tilburg advised to close all coffeeshops, and if that is not possible, to introduce the Weedpass, however a majority of the Council rejected this advice.

Justice Minister Opstelten referred to the (approved) verdict of the European Court. Just so you know, the court ruled that the residence criteria are against the EU Constitution, but they can be executed temporarily against drug tourism, for the period the problem exists. This is not exactly a mandate to nationally apply a pass or card with a local function.

Residence criteria: This makes excluding foreigners from coffeeshops possible, but it needs a change in the Local Police Law, Maastricht did that, however, the majority of the Maastricht City Council now wants to reverse this change, so the Weedpass will not fly.

This means the weed will bypass the Weedpass, because it will only work if all border cities introduce it, without Maastricht it makes no sense at all, all tourists would go there. This will mean the end of this stupid scheme, because the rest of Dutch Cities with coffeeshops will not introduce the Weedpass, as most of them, like Amsterdam, did not want the pass in the first place.

Besides the problems in the practical execution of the Weedpass, it has more or less been made impossible by two motions that have been filed in the Eerste Kamer (House of Senators) last week, both of them in connection with the evaluation of the Law on Protection of Personal Data. 10 political parties have accepted both motions, by Franken (CDA) and Tan (PvdA) during the sitting on May 24. Franken requested the government to implement 5 criteria in the decision, Tan requested a proposal for a law on identity management.

This means the medical data and the data of those using public transport cannot be registered in a National Data Bank, as the government CANNOT guarantee the data will not be stolen by crooks. This also means the eventual Weedpass data cannot be registered by our government.

I say, let the weed pass from the Dutch coffeeshops to those who want it, from wherever they are. I call upon the German, French and Belgium cannabis aficionados to try to open their own cannabis outlets; the EU will let you do it!

Nol van Schaik, coffeeshop entrepreneur, Haarlem, the Netherlands.

The Dutch Weedpass: Failure before introduction. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

I have today sent the following letter for publication.

Sir,

The whole Sativex story is a scam predicated on a confidence trick which relies on the stupid and self-defeating policy of prohibition.

Both the US and UK governments deny the medicinal benefits of cannabis, despite the huge wealth of peer reviewed scientific research to the contrary. The US government’s hypocrisy is best demonstrated by the patent it registered in 2003, no. 6630507, “for cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for limiting neurological damage following stroke or physical trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementia”. The British government’s hypocrisy is best demonstrated by Sativex.

Sativex is cannabis. It is the product of two strains of the plant, one sativa grown to be high in THC, one ruderalis grown to high in CBD. The medicine is manufactured by a CO2 extraction process which uses ethanol to precipitate a tincture of cannabis containing all the cannabinoids, terpenoids and other compounds present in the plant. GW Pharma led the government to believe that Sativex is an extract of THC and CBD, some sort of sophisticated pharmaceutical preparation but this is not true. It is pharmacologically identical to the cannabis grown illegally in people’s own homes or by government approved growers in Holland, 16 US states or Israel. Sativex is sold at something like 10 times the price that the organised crime bosses charge.for the same product on the streets of Britain. An identical medicine can be grown easily and safely in people’s own homes or greenhouses for virtually nothing. It is a confidence trick to pretend Sativex is anything different.

GW does achieve a consistent and standardised dosage in its sophisticated grow rooms but Bedrocan, the Dutch government’s grower, achieves exactly the same thing in the herbal product that it exports all over Europe. It requires no more skill than do consistent crops of tomatoes, cucumbers or roses.

The Home Office’s endless repetition that there are no medicinal benefits in herbal cannabis is absolute nonsense and a blatant untruth. It faces a very difficult situation at present because the ACMD has recommended re-classifying Sativex as a schedule 4 drug but it cannot be scheduled under a brand name, it has to be scheduled under a scientifically accurate description. There is no alternative except simply to call it cannabis because that is what it is The Home Office is therefore in full scale procrastination mode.

GW deserves congratulation for bringing the benefits of cannabinoid medicne to market. Massive donations to the Labour party secured its unique licence from the Home Office but this situation cannot continue. It is fundamentally dishonest and is preventing millionms of British citizens from access to the medicine they need.

Cannabis offers enormous therapeutic benefits for many conditions other than MS. Crohn’s, cancer, most neurodegenerative diseases, depression, PTSD, glaucoma, autism, the list goes on and on. It is a scandal of government misinformation and untruths that denies this to British citizens. As the Sativex scam unravels, it seems that the truth may finally be revealed.

Peter Reynolds, Leader, Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR)

“MS Patients Denied Licensed Cannabis Drug By NHS”, The Guardian, 30th May 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

It’s always seemed absurd to me and a recipe for trouble that while possession and sale in coffee shops is permitted, the supply chain remains illegal.  It negates one of the greatest benefits of an end to prohibition – taking the market away from criminals.

I am unconvinced that the wietpas will stick anyway.  The Dutch are famous for their tolerance and for an ability to look the other way when it suits them for practical reasons.  My brother in law, a Dutchman, spoke the word the other day ” gedogen”, which has no precise English translation – and is not pronounced as simply as it looks!

Consider though, as I understand it, coffee shops are to become clubs, restricted to 1500 members each.  This is similar to the present arrangements in Spain and to the clubs proposal put forward by Alun Buffry.  If it was to operate across Europe, it is a method of regulation that I would support and which would avoid the obvious problems that the Dutch towns bordering Germany have suffered.   If the members were allowed to grow for their own use it could become a solution that would suit everyone – except organised crime.

A Favourite View

On this basis it may work.   The alternative is that the trade is driven underground and then, inevitably, crime and violence will increase, prices will rise, quality will suffer and Amsterdam, in particular, will descend into mayhem.  I don’t believe that the Dutch people will allow that to happen.

New Amsterdam. A Way Forward? - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party