Prof. Les Iversen

Prof. Tim Kirkham

Dr Trevor Turner

Prof Glyn Lewis

Dr Clare Gerada

Prof. David Nutt

Prof Terrie Moffitt

What The Experts Say About Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

This is a connivance and a lie, the result of which is to deny sick and disabled people access to the cannabis they need as medicine and to reinforce the corrupt and unlawful monopoly of medicinal cannabis granted to GW Pharmaceuticals.

I consider that this is the point at which Professor Les Iversen has sold out to a cruel, oppressive, irrational and unjust government policy.  He knows full well the enormous therapeutic value which cannabis offers to millions of people in Britain.  He has succumbed to a corrupt conspiracy between the Home Office and its partners in crime, GW Pharmaceuticals.

Home Office Deception On Medicinal Cannabis - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

By Stickybud

I have done my share of writing letters, but it is difficult to see how they can have much of an effect against prejudice, vested interest and an eyes-closed, fingers-in-ears, loud-whistling mentality.

That is not to detract from Peter Reynolds’ outstanding and prolific efforts to address the inaccuracies and downright lies disseminated every day in our newspapers and broadcast media: his skills at tirelessly addressing these insidious untruths, through letters and debate, have raised not only his profile, but that of CLEAR’s, and put the perpetrators on notice that there are intelligent, informed people ‘out there’ who will challenge their black arts.

His position as leader of the main cannabis anti-prohibition organisation in Britain has also enabled him to establish links with other like-minded bodies, and individuals – such as Professor Les Iversen and Professor David Nutt – towards legitimising the Tree Of Life.

This might make some of us feel relatively powerless; or possibly just content to belong to (or otherwise support) CLEAR, and let Peter, Derek Williams and others get on with the stuff they do best.

But all of us can still perform some valuable budget activism.

A few years ago, it occurred to me that nothing would really change until enough of the public at large learned enough about cannabis, particularly its astonishing healing capability, to make a loud enough noise for the politicians to hear. Let’s face it, it’s all about votes at the end of the day.

The Daily Mail, the BBC and the government have millions of pounds and professional propagandists at their disposal, to keep the population ‘thinking’ their way: I remember Peter saying that CLEAR runs on about £10k per annum; but I think that figure is matched, per pound, by members and supporters, presumably dispersed representatively all over the country. Information spreads like mice breed, so think of the value in arousing a few people’s interest, then pointing them towards a relevant website, book or video.

I realised that, with a small amount of money, time and effort, I could do something myself to start this process. So I ordered some small (21mm x 39mm), self-adhesive labels, and printed my own stickers. Because I only have a black-and-white laser printer, I bought bright green labels, to make them stand out, and to fit in with the ‘green’ image we want to project. If you are using an inkjet printer, it might be advisable to buy bigger labels: I don’t think the resolution is as good as a laser’s (it might be an idea to experiment first, using different templates, with plain paper). I use a steel ruler and a scalpel to cut the sheets of stickers into convenient strips.

I felt that the best place to start discovering fascinating yet shocking information about cannabis and its prohibition would be on Jack Herer’s site, with ‘The Emperor Wears No Clothes’, so my first stickers read:

The Truth About Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana / The Emperor Wears No Clothes / www.etc.

After I had watched ‘Run From The Cure’ for the first time, I made some saying:

Cannabis Cures Cancer / Run From The Cure / www.phoenixtears….

In light of CLEAR’s recent concerns about cancer-curing claims, you might want to put something like ‘Does Cannabis Cure Cancer?’, along with the relevant information.

I have now printed some with the CLEAR logo and name; with ‘The truth about cannabis is’ above, and the web address below.

I also bought some thin card and printed the following:

A Canadian man, Rick Simpson, claims to be curing people of cancer (including ‘terminal’ cancer), using oil extracted from the Hemp plant.

The British Media are not reporting this.

Go to: www.phoenixtears….

For further information about the Hemp plant, go to: www.jackherer….

Notice, no mention of cannabis there. Cancer is a disease that strikes fear into every adult, and there are few families who haven’t been touched by the suffering and despair it brings.

I cut these postcard-size, as I had considered placing them on ‘for sale’ boards in supermarkets, but thought better of it. Instead, I put strips of double-sided tape on the back, leaving the paper backing in place until I was ready to stick them in suitable places.

Some Saturdays, when I visit the town centre where I live, I walk up a ramp from the car park and pass two of these cards, stuck opposite each other on the windows either side of the door to a long-closed restaurant. I put them there four years ago, and they are still intact. Even the highlighter that I used on various parts of it is still visible. The young people that sometimes hang around there have left them alone. I think I would expect that.

Good places to put stickers are where people have to look, such as on parking ticket machines, bus timetable holders (don’t obscure any information, as that is counterproductive), petrol pumps, postboxes and nameplates. I have even stuck one or two on the door of my local chinese medicine shop. It is, of course, necessary to exercise caution, as it’s possibly a criminal damage offence.

A less stressful way of educating the masses is to ask your local library to order books for you. I did it years ago with ‘The Emperor’, and recently with ‘Marijuana: Gateway To Health’ by Clint Werner. I had bought this from Amazon, and saw it as a fairly comprehensive guide to what we know about the herb so far, although Clint doesn’t seem to fully understand the Sativex issue.

Bear in mind that not everybody has (or wants) access to the internet; and that there are avid readers in every town who swoop on new additions to the library – maybe the two go together. I imagine that people who don’t use cannabis wouldn’t necessarily experience the same reservations that some of us might, in discussing it with (other) non-users.

My library acquired the book in two weeks, and now it is available for potentially tens of thousands of people to read: I bet the date-stamp page is filling up nicely.

They charged me two quid for the service, but I consider it money well-spent. If that is a considerable amount to you, why not get your friends to chip in – they’ll be able to read it too!

Unfortunately, I was unable to put ‘What If Cannabis Cured Cancer?’ on their DVD shelf: they seemed reluctant to order it from the US. But that doesn’t mean it will be the same story in your area – give it a try! I am considering buying another copy, and donating it to the library.

Without having to make a big fuss, we have the potential to spread the word in practically every area of the country. OK, so it’s not a national hoarding campaign but is, nonetheless, good value, and potentially very effective.

Veritas per furtim.

The Truth Will Out - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Professor David Nutt

HASC Drugs Inquiry

Tomorrow, at the HASC drugs inquiry, Professor David Nutt leads the first group of genuinely impartial, expert witnesses.  Until now, with perhaps one exception, all we’ve had have been celebrities, government stooges and the most extreme prohibitionist propagandists.

First there was Sir Richard who is, of course, very rich.  He’s also a cool cat who appreciates the value of cannabis but, by his own admission, he’s “no expert” and he’s a little confused between “skunk and ordinary marijuana”.  ”Ordinary marijuana” is presumably what some gringo buys from some hispanic hombre in Tijuana.  “Skunk”, apparently, is “too strong”, whatever that means.  The Global Commission is a welcome initiative but it contributes influence rather than expertise.

The UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC), represented by Roger Howard, is the one honourable exception.  It claims to provide “objective analysis of UK drug policy” and does know the difference between evidence and prejudice.

Then there was a flush of representatives from the self-serving drug support industry which – surprise, surprise – wants to see a continuance of the status quo and finds it convenient to lump all drugs together as one, with the aim of getting as many new referrals through the door as possible.  The medical establishment in the form of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of GPs followed, never letting evidence or modern science stand in the way of their vested interests or out of date knowledge.

Expert Witness?

Then came the entertainment with Russell Brand, dressed to impress, theatrical, controversial and passionate but probably counterproductive.  A crescendo of misinformation, bigotry and prejudice was reached with the joint appearance of Kathy Gyngell, Peter Hitchens and Mary Brett.  On reflection, perhaps it was a good thing to herd them all on at once.  The most blatant lies and extreme propaganda all crammed into one short session.

Prof. Les Iversen

So tomorrow is of vital importance.  Professor Nutt and Dr King will, of course, be discussing more than just cannabis, although the recent controversy over the British Lung Foundation report will almost certainly be mentioned.  In the second session, the representatives from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will be more focused on legal highs and their current reviews of khat and cocaine.  However, I am very hopeful that Professor Les Iversen will be asked about the medicinal use of cannabis and I have written to Keith Vaz, chair of the committee suggesting this.

Watch the hearing live here from 11.00am tomorrow.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, 19th June, Is A Very Important Day For The Cannabis Campaign - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Laurel Bush

Laurel Bush,  a CLEAR member, is working diligently and courageously on exposing the truth about Sativex and the dishonest and corrupt relationship between GW Pharmaceuticals and the Home Office.  Now it seems that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is becoming a co-conspirator.

Having previously recognised Sativex as cannabis and therefore a schedule 1 drug “with no medicinal value”, it has now decided that Sativex isn’t cannabis at all!  See here for Laurel’s work with Freedom of Information requests which has exposed the dishonesty at the heart of government.  His tenacity is magnificent and he is owed a huge debt of gratitude from all those who need cannabis as medicine.

What brings this issue to the fore again is the pressing need for the Home Office to re-schedule Sativex (also known by the non-proprietary  name of Nabiximols) under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).   Professor Les Iversen, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), wrote to the Home Office in January 2011 advising that it be placed into schedule 4.  This hasn’t happened yet because the Home Office is desperately seeking a way falsely to distinguish Sativex from cannabis.  Now it seems it’s trying to inveigle more people into its deception.

I have written to Professor Sir Kent Woods, chief executive of the MHRA, asking him to take action to protect the integrity of the agency and to ensure the truth about Sativex is made clear.

Prof. Sir Kent Woods

Dear Sir Kent,

Sativex (Nabiximols)

I am the elected leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a registered UK political party that seeks an end to the prohibition of cannabis, most urgently for those who need it as medicine.

I am extremely concerned at the response by Sue Jones, your corporate policy official on 15th March 2012 to an FOI request concerning the ingredients of Sativex (your reference 12-065).

Ms Jones wrote:

“…the active elements of this drug are not cannabis, but two constituents found in the cannabis plant that have been found to have pharmacological properties for treating these specific indications. An “active constituent” means it has the pharmacological activity to treat the proposed indications. Since the product is derived from elements in the cannabis plant, rather than the cannabis plant itself, it should be clear therefore that Sativex is not “cannabis”.

This is entirely false. It is nonsense.

It is within the public domain that Sativex is an whole plant extract manufactured by blending two strains of herbal cannabis and using a CO2 extraction process to produce a tincture which also contains ethanol, propylene glycol and peppermint oil. Sativex is cannabis and contains all the cannabinoids, terpines and flavonoids present in the plants from which it is made.

Dr David Potter

David Potter, Director of Botanical Research and Cultivation at GW Pharmaceuticals, explains why the minor ingredients of cannabis are so important to the efficacy of Sativex in his thesis: http://www.gwpharm.com/uploads/phd_david_potter_jp.pdf

Dr Geoffrey Guy

Dr Geoffrey Guy, founder and executive chairman of GW, is on the record saying:

“Most people in our industry said it was impossible to turn cannabis into a prescription medicine. We had to rewrite the rule book. We have the first approval of a plant extract drug in modern history. It has 420 molecules, whereas every other drug has just one.”

GW Pharmaceuticals and the Home Office are presently engaged in an unlawful conspiracy falsely to distinguish Sativex from cannabis in order that the tincture can be re-scheduled into schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 leaving herbal cannabis in schedule 1. This is dishonest and corrupt.

Please can you reassure me that the MHRA is not party to this attempted deception?

I would ask that you issue a correction to Ms Jones’ response. The truth about Sativex and cannabis is of far more importance than any attempt at disinformation in order to support the government’s failed and dishonest policy of prohibition.

The Home Office position that “there is no medicinal value in cannabis” is a lie and I call on you to ensure that the MHRA deals only in the truth.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

 Peter Reynolds

The Sativex Scam Becomes A Scandal - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Professor Les Iversen delivers the Inaugural President’s Public Lecture during the BPS Winter Meeting, London 2010.

Prof. Iversen is the current chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and a founder council member of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register.  He is also the author of many publications and books on cannabis.  He is famous for his article in The Times headlined “Cannabis.  Why It’s Safe” and for saying that cannabis is “one of the safer recreational drugs”.

He walks a courageous and tricky tightrope between science and his ACMD role.  He is the government’s chief drug adviser so at least we know they are getting good advice even if they don’t act on it.

You can watch the lecture here.

Professor Iversen has also provided me with a copy of his Powerpoint presentation from the lecture which you can download here.

Bringing Cannabis Back Into The Medicine Cabinet - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Sativex is super strong, concentrated cannabis.  Nothing more, nothing less.

GW Pharmaceuticals would have you believe that it’s a “pharmaceutical” product because according to its research that’s what patients prefer.  As the GW spokesman puts it, “It’s a pharmaceutical solution, formulated with the ability to deliver a precise dose and with stringent standards of quality, safety and efficacy”.

In fact, what GW does is grow high quality cannabis under pretty much the same conditions as most illegal growers.   It uses clonal propagation to ensure consistent levels of cannabinoids.  Lighting and hydroponic nutrition is computer controlled with automatic ventilation. It really is no different from the most sophisticated and efficient illegal cannabis farms.  It’s a recognised and proven technology now also used by Bedrocan in Holland, the Dutch government’s exclusive medicinal cannabis grower and Gropech in California which is building a new 60,000 sq ft facility in Oakland for an annual harvest worth $50 million.

Bedrocan Grow

The difference between these crops from legal and illegal growers is insignificant.  It’s similar to buying your tomatoes from the supermarket or the farm shop.

GW Grow

GW takes its high quality cannabis, chops it up and makes a tincture by heating it under pressure with CO2 and then adding ethanol to precipitate an oil. Then, with the addition of a little peppermint oil to mask the taste and some preservative, the filtered liquid is packaged into tiny little aerosol bottles.  Each spray delivers 2.7mg of THC and 2.5mg of CBD.  What GW doesn’t tell you that it also contains all the other 100+  cannabinoids found in the plant, each of which has its own mechanism of action and effect.  It also contains flavonoids, terpines and other compounds.  Everything that is found in the plant.

Illegal Grow

I applaud GW Pharmaceuticals for bringing the enormous benefits of cannabinoid therapy into the 21st century. It’s nothing new though. The medicinal value of the plant has been known and widely used for thousands of years.  Only in the last century has it been demonised by lies and propaganda.  It would be a mistake though to think that Sativex is anything different from the plant itself.  It’s just been wrapped up in a marketing and physical package which has enabled stupid and cowardly politicians to accept it.

In fact, Sativex remains just as illegal in Britain as herbal cannabis.  Even though it has received MHRA approval for use in the treatment of MS spasticity and may be prescribed by a doctor, it remains a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971.  The Home Office has indicated that it intends to amend the law but has not yet done so.  This means that any pharmacist who dispenses Sativex at present would be guilty of exactly the same criminal offence as any street dealer in weed or hash.

The Home Office will, of course, turn a blind eye to this but not to medicinal herbal cannabis even though, in every sense, it is identical to Sativex (except that Sativex also contains alcohol and peppermint oil).  The stark idiocy of British law is revealed.

Never before has there been a better example of the how the law is an ass and so are the spineless politicians who support it.

Update

In 2011 the Home Office issued what it calls an “Open General Licence” for Sativex allowing it to be prescribed and dispensed.  A doctor may prescribe Sativex for its approved purposed “spasticity in MS” or, “off label”, for any condition he or she believes it to be beneficial for.  However, “off label” prescriptions are the doctor’s personal responsibility so it is easy to understand why doctors may be hesitant to do so.

Most PCTs and health authorities are refusing to fund Sativex because of the extraordinarily high price that GW and its UK distributors Bayer want to charge the NHS.  At about £175 per bottle, Sativex costs around 10 times what organised crime sells cannabis for on the streets.  Products that are pharmacologically identical to Sativex are available from medical marijuana dispensaries in the US for around $20 per bottle (usually containing much more than the GW product).  Alta California offers three varieties of a Sativex-type tincture with different cannabinoid ratios for different purposes.

In June 2011, CLEAR and Action4MS announced a joint venture Access Sativex which will seek to organise and help people apply for Sativex.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recommended that Sativex be  placed in schedule four of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA).  The chair, Professor Les Iversen, wrote to the Home Office on 14th January 2011 with this advice but nothing has been done.  It is easy to understand why.  As Professor Iversen wrote:  “The ACMD is also aware that it will not be appropriate to refer to “Sativex”, which is a proprietary name, in any amendment to the misuse of drugs regulations, and that a suitable description of the relevant component(s) of “Sativex” will have to be scheduled”.

There is no honest or accurate way to describe Sativex except to say that it is cannabis.  The Home Office is on the record as saying that “the future scheduling of this medicinal product will not affect the classification of cannabis” which is unambiguous evidence of an intention to deceive.

Perhaps the most important truth to emerge from this story of deceit and disinformation is the statement made by Professor H.P. Hartung, Chair of Neurology at Heinrich-Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany on 24th October 2011.  He was commenting on data from three Phase III trials involving over 1,500 MS patients as well as first everyday clinical practice data were presented by a panel of international experts at the European Congress of Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) in Amsterdam.

“Sativex^® has proven to reduce the severity of symptoms and improve patients’ quality of life and functional status, in patients with spasticity in multiple sclerosis, meaning that they can undertake everyday tasks more easily. Also, importantly, clinical experience to date has demonstrated that the tolerability profile of this medicine is favourable, with limited relevant adverse effects and – particularly reassuring – the drug does not appear to lead to withdrawal effects if patients suddenly stop using it.”

The Truth About Sativex - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Reverberating into the first days of 2011 were two key events.  There was Bob Ainsworth’s brave foray into the drugs debate in Westminster Hall.  As an ex-drugs minister he joined the long line of individuals who have only felt able to speak the truth about the futile and disastrous “war on drugs” after they have left office.  Nonetheless, his contribuition was welcome.  James Brokenshire responded to the Westminster Hall debate with his usual doublespeak and made a dreadful gaffe about adulterated cocaine being a  measure of success.  Most shameful of all was the Labour party’s one word dismissal of his initiative.  I will return to the flyers of the red flag later but it has to be said that they have the worst, most cowardly and insincere record on drugs policy of any UK political party.

The other key event in December was the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen, presenting a lecture at the British Pharmacological Society entitled “Bringing Cannabis back into the Medicine Cabinet”.  That’s the government you will remember that says there is “no medicinal value” in cannabis while at the same time granting an unlawful monopoly to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes per year for medicine.  The very latest news is that they have refused an FOI request for details of GW Pharmaceuticals’ licence.

Over the Christmas 2010 period I began to take on responsibility as Speaker for the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA).  The membership was balloted on the question of re-registering as a political party and appointing a leader.  The result was overwhelmingly in favour.  At the end of January there was an LCA admin meeting held in Witham, Essex.  Stuart Warwick and I were proposed as candidates for the leadership and we were both both appointed to the admin team. The leadership election was underway.

In mid January the “Henry’s Demons” story was launched in the media on a wave of reefer madness hysteria.  Patrick Cockburn, a veteran Fleet Street journalist had written a book with his son Henry in which he blamed Henry’s mental illness on his use of cannabis.  Cockburn shamelessly exploited his media contacts in order to promote his book and it was everywhere.  Peter Hitchens was in the front line both in newspapers and doing the TV interview circuit.   Looking back, this was what kickstarted our Press Complaints Commission campaign.  Still to this day, there are complaints in progress at the PCC on related stories. There  is no doubt that the Cockburn family had experienced a dreadful tragedy but the book and the articles about it plumbed the very worst depths of inaccuracy, scaremongering and blatant untruths.

Also in January the pre-release trailer of “When We Grow” was released, a documentary made on a shoestring by a very talented group of A level students and featuring Professor David Nutt, Sarah Martin and myself.  It was to prove one of the major successes of the year.  The full movie has now been watched over 300,000 times on YouTube.

January also saw the BBC broadcast a series entitled “How Drugs Work” which attracted a lot of anger for some of its sensationalist language, notably “cannabis hijacks the nervous system like a herbal terrorist” but overall it was actually quite balanced and much more accurate than most similar programmes.  Astonishingly we also then had another two part BBC documentary, “Cannabis: What’s the Harm?” which featured our very own Jason Reed’s story.

It was around this time that I first began to experience the reality of being a cannabis politician.  Emanating from the UK420 website came a stream of hostility, abuse and quite ludicrous paranoia about what I was up to.  Let’s be clear, most of the people on UK420 are good guys, just like you and me but there’s a small group of real troublemakers who are intent on causing trouble.  They seem to think they’re fighting a war against the system and anyone who tries to work with the system is an enemy.  I was accused of being an undercover cop, trying to get medicinal users to reveal their names and addresses so they could be busted.  I was also accused of doing it all “to make money” which as anyone who has any common sense at all will tell you is exactly the opposite of what being involved in cannabis politics achieves!

At the time I laughed off the undercover cop story but extraordinary events also in January were to make me reconsider my judgement. It was revealed that a policeman, Mark Kennedy, had been undercover in the climate change movement for years.  Gradually I began to revise my opinion.  I mean there’s nothing contrary to law about the climate change movement whereas there most certainly is about the cannabis movement.  So if the police choose to go undercover for climate change, surely it’s virtually certain that they would do so for cannabis?   I started to question myself.  Why has the cannabis campaign achieved so little progress despite the strength of its arguments?  Why had the efforts of the last few year been so badly managed and presented with the most dreadful image of cannabis users?  Why has there always been so much bickering and infighting in the movement?

January also saw the launch of the Global Commission on Drug Policy with heavyweights like Sir Richard Branson and Kofi Annan calling for radical change.

By mid February I had been elected leader of the LCA, winning two-thirds of all votes cast.  I set out to implement the manifesto on which I’d been elected.  We moved into the “New LCA” era. This meant a new constitution and we decided to address the thorny issue of the name at the same time.  Did we want to continue to be called the Legalise Cannabis Alliance?  Many people were opposed to the use of the word legalise which was widely interpreted to mean a free for all.  We called for suggestions for a new name.

Other than that, the most immediate need was for an up to date and professional website.  Looking back now I can see that I wasn’t strong enough about this to begin with.  The old LCA site was dreadful.  It actually caused more harm than good to the cause and promoted a dreadful, scruffy and unprofessional image.  I was too concerned about upsetting those who had been involved in it in the past and I agreed to keep it up while we undertook the mammoth task of creating a replacement.

I was very surprised that Alun Buffry chose to resign from the LCA admin team following the leadership election.  I and other members of the committee went to great lengths to get him to stay on.  I asked him to become party chairman but he could have chosen his job title and designed his role as he wanted to.  However, he was determined to return to independent campaigning.  He said he didn’t want to be led and he didn’t want to be a leader.  At that time, I think we were all saddened by his decision and we hoped that he would change his mind.  He certainly stayed involved, even though he wasn’t even a member anymore, he continued to offer his advice to everyone on the admin team.

The first hints of trouble came when I started to receive a stream of emails from people who had worked with the LCA in the past but had left because they couldn’t get on with Alun.  He also started to get increasingly aggressive and disruptive about all the changes that were in progress – even though he wasn’t even a member anymore.  He didn’t seem to be able to let go of the reins and I felt some sympathy for him about this, as did everyone on the admin team.  Again, in retrospect, I should probably have been stronger with him at the time and made clear to him that if he wasn’t even a member he should stop interfering.

At the end of February, David Cameron made some astonishingly  inaccurate and false remarks about cannabis on a YouTube Al Jazeera interview.  There is no doubt at all that he was speaking untruths.  I have been writing to him asking for a correction ever since.  The latest is that Paul Flynn MP is writing to him on my behalf asking why my letters have been ignored and why Cameron will not issue a correction.

In early March I had to draw a line with Alun Buffry as he was misusing his access to the existing LCA website and using the LCA’s mailing lists for his own purposes.  The relationship was becoming increasingly difficult.  He couldn’t let go and was interfering in everything and stirring up trouble, posting criticism wherever he could.

On 11th March we held the first committee meeting since my election.  It was an extremely difficult meeting.  Don Barnard said straight out that he was going to veto any changes at all, despite what the members had voted for in my leadership manifesto. We went round and round in circles for hours.  Eventually there was no other option, by unanimous vote, except for Don, he was voted off the committee.

In the end it was all done in reasonably good humour. We agreed to recommend the new constitution to the membership along with a name change to Cannabis Law Reform.  At that point, Jason Reed (aka Homegrown Outlaw) also joined the committee.

A few days later we agreed to offer Don the first ever fellowship of the party in recognition of his long service as its press officer.  To this day he remains the only holder of this honour.

Also in March we held a meeting with the Royal Parks management and police about the possibility of holding an official event there to coincide with the worldwide Million Marijuana march.  This was to have a very sad outcome.  The people we met with, including the police, were friendly, encouraging and positive.  We agreed to pay a cash bond, take out insurance, hire hundreds of stewards and clean the site afterwards. A few days later we were told that yes we could hold the event but we couldn’t have a stage or a PA.  We did our best to change this decision but the faceless bureaucrat that made it was intransigent. It was clear that in fact this was a way of saying “yes” but meaning “no”.

A few weeks later on 20th April (420) an unoffical event took place in Hyde Park.  We had no part in organising it but I was invited to speak.  Tragically it ended in violence with a gang war amongst dealers and several people were badly hurt.  The park was utterly trashed with litter everywhere. That idiotic, faceless bureaucrat should have this disaster on his conscience.  By contrast, we approached Cardiff city council.  It and the Cardiff police welcomed us and we ran a very successful event there on 7th May.

It was towards the end of March that the situation with Alun Buffry came to a head.  He had set up the original hosting account for the website and was refusing to hand over the passwords or allow access to the LCA data.  He was arguing about some of the data being his, even though LCA had paid for all the hosting and even trying to retain the LCA website address as his own..

It then emerged that Alun was running and promoting a “no” campaign on the vote to adopt the new constitution and name. This, remember, even though he was no longer on the committee nor even a member.

That last weekend in March the vote closed with a positive result. The new constitution was approved and from that moment on the LCA became Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR).

Then the Buffry bombshell hit.  Suddenly, we the CLEAR executive committee, were locked out of our own website.  Also we started to receive emails and messages that Alun was re-launching the LCA and he already had a new petition up on the web using the old LCA constitution.

That wasn’t all.  A new Facebook page had appeared called Legalise Cannabis Alliance UK, using the LCA logo. Disturbingly, I also received some very angry messages from NORML asking who was behind the NORML UK Facebook page.

It wasn’t hard to work it out.  Alun Buffry turned out to be the administrator of the NORML UK page which he had set up entirely without authority or permission and for which he was unlawfully using the NORML logo.  Winston Matthews was the administrator of the LCA UK page and he had stolen a copy of the LCA logo.

I think we all realised at that point that we had been too polite, too considerate and too gentle with Alun and his small group of friends who were evidently hell bent on causing as much trouble as possible.  We agreed to take immediate and severe action.  We couldn’t access the website so we contacted the hosting company and had them take the whole site down., We resolved to set up the new site with a new hosting company.  Facebook co-operated with us and NORML and the sham pages were taken down.  We agreed we had no option but to expel Winston from the party.

Around this time the Peter Reynolds “hate” website came on line.  It accused me of being a undercover cop (again) of having lied about everything in my past, of being a Jew hater, a racist, and just about every other ridiculous allegation they could dream up.

Learning to deal with this sort of abuse and with the constant sniping, criticism and blatant lies and distortions has been the biggest learning curve of my life.  As you will know, it’s still going on today and Buffry is continually engaged in an anti Peter Reynolds campaign.  His latest Facebook page was taken down recently but I expect another will be up soon.

The main reason for covering these events in some detail in this review of the past year is to put the whole sorry tale to bed for good.  I’ve answered the same questions literally hundreds of times to members who are genuinely worried and concerned about the lies and distortions they’ve been fed.  Now, if it comes up again I can just refer people to this article.

Many people thought Buffry was behind the hate site but I knew it wasn’t him.  It was promoted by the idiot who calls himself Hughie Green who many will know from UK420.  Eventually he shut up when, bit by bit, I posted evidence to prove that everything I had said about myself is true.  He indulged in all sorts of really pathetic games, posting 50 comments at a time on my website full of foul abuse.  Still today, I get these long, rambling, barely coherent rants about how I want to take away people’s freedom, I’m only in it for the money and how I eat baby girls for breakfast three days a week and similar nonsense!

I’ve learned to ignore these people (most of the time!) and get on with the campaign.  More and more of my time in the spring was spent on PCC complaints.  The newspapers, principally the Daily Mail, had never, ever been held to account before and been made to substantiate their claims (Why not I ask?).  As we got into swopping scientific evidence it became clear that most of these journalists have no idea at all what they’re writing about and they falsify and distort the evidence with impunity. Quite soon we began to notice a toning down of language and that they were taking a more cautious approach

I attended the Students for Sensible Drug Policy conference in Manchester with Clark French and Greg de Hoedt (aka Cure Ukay).  This was one of the highlights of the year for me and on the long journey there and back I experenced what a dramatic and transformational effect cannabis has on these two very brave young mens’ lives. Clark has MS and Greg has Crohn’s disease.  They are my inspiration and it is for them and others like them that I continue to fight even in the darkest moments when I am subject to the sort of vile abuse that comes from Buffry and others.

In April there was a debate at Kings College in London where I met Peter Hitchens for the first time and another at the Policy Exchange in Westminster where he was once again opposed by ex police chief Tom Lloyd and Sir Ian Gilmour from the Royal College of Physicians.  I was determined that this was the level that I wanted CLEAR to be operating at .  We had to elevate ourselves from the dreadful scruffy, mumbling old hippy image of the past and adopt a new scientific, professional, responsible, up to date profile.

Also in April, Stuart Warwick and I visted Tom Raikes of Seedsman at his delightful, rural headquarters in Oxfordshire.  We went there with a proposal and it was entirely due to Tom’s generosity that we left with a cheque sufficient to fund our very own expert study into the economics of a tax and regulate policy on cannabis in Britain.

This was it.  This was an important moment.  I knew then, as Stuart and I walked back to my car, me with a cheque in my pocket, he with a free packet of pineapple kush seeds.  From that moment on,  CLEAR was moving the campaign onto onto a new, positive and far more credible level.

…to be continued.

Review Of 2011. Part One. - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Originally published on politics.co.uk, 21-11-11

The Unexpurgated Version!

In the mid 1930s, after the end of alcohol prohibition, Harry Anslinger, former assistant commissioner at the Bureau of Prohibition was settling into his exciting new job as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and working on his next campaign.

“This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with negroes, entertainers and any others.” he wrote in one of Randolph Hearst’s newspapers.  Hearst was behind the organised campaign against cannabis hemp, then one of America’s most successful crops, by timber, oil and paper interests.  The strategy was to slur the plant with the racist term “marijuana”, demonise it, outlaw it and wipe it out.

Come forward about 80 years to the present day.  In the US there is the White House drugs czar Gil Kerlikowske and the head of the DEA, Michelle Leonhart.  In Britain we have James Brokenshire, the Home Office minister.  These people are faithful in style and message to their role model Anslinger.  They use arguments and propaganda of exactly the same type and value but adjusted to politically correct 2011 terms. Their weapon is deceit and their strategy is intransigence. The prejudice, discrimination and media scaremongering continues.  As Anslinger had Randolph Hearst’s media empire, so Brokenshire has the Daily Mail.

James Broken...... (complete as desired)

The Mail came out all guns blazing last week in response to the Global Initiative on Drug Policy Reform and the ex-head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller,  calling for legal regulation.  Despite the furious propaganda war it has waged against cannabis and cannabis users the issue won’t go away.  Why?  Because millions of British citizens regularly use and enjoy cannabis with no ill effects and many find it of enormous therapeutic benefit for conditions such as chronic pain, MS and Crohn’s disease.  Also, because this war on cannabis is just another war on people.  It is futile, expensive and causes far more harm than it prevents.  It has created the modern phenomenon of rented property being destroyed, electricity being stolen with human trafficked gardeners and intensive production of high potency cannabis.

Buffoon

For forty years the Daily Mail has been running its malevolent, systematic campaign of misinformation and false science.  So successful has it been that it has had both the present and the former prime minister repeating its untruths like faithful disciples.  Gordon Brown and Paul Dacre conspiring together to come out with the “skunk is lethal” buffoonery in 2008 is one of the most blatant examples of improper collusion between government and media. In March this year, in a YouTube Al Jazeera interview, David Cameron made a series of statements about cannabis that are absolutely false which despite repeated polite requests he has done nothing to correct. Even more astonishing is the way the Mail has brought its competitors along with it.  Not just tabloids, even The Independent, which had made a noble and courageous stand for a rational policy back in 1997 was duped 10 years later into its famous “Cannabis, An Apology” front page.

The Daily Mail In Disguise

Duped is exactly the right word.  Amongst a torrent of sensationalist claims there was “skunk cannabis is 25 times stronger”, “more than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction”, that there was “growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis”.  All presented in accordance with the Daily Mail stylesheet.  This year, the Independent on Sunday’s chief political commentator, John Rentoul, wrote “It is a bad thing that the drugs business is in the hands of criminals. My view is that it would be a worse thing if it were legalised, and regulated or administered by the government.” It is astonishing that a man who takes such an irrational and irresponsible position should be given a platform for such views.

All of The Independent’s claims were false.  The truth is that cannabis today is on average about two to three times stronger than it used to be, about 750 people each year are admitted to hospital for cannabis (while 3000 are admitted for peanuts) and there is no proof at all of a causal link between cannabis and psychosis, only of correlation and increase in risk – but the increase is far greater for alcohol and tobacco use, even for energy drinks.  Also alcohol is clearly proven actually to cause psychosis in around 1% of users.

The best evidence about cannabis and psychosis is a review of all published research (Hickman et al 2009) so, by definition, not cherry picked.  It shows that, although there is no proof of causation, the risk of a correlation between lifetime cannabis use and a single psychotic episode is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

High Priest Of Propaganda

The Daily Mail’s campaign has become self-perpetuating.  Its high priest was chosen as Professor Sir Robin Murray at the church of the Institute of Psychiatry.  Science is usually about dispassionate analysis of evidence but Sir Robin is a very active anti-cannabis campaigner.  In 2005 he found what he thought was his holy grail, he was a co-author on a paper which postulated a theory about a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene.  This was reported as meaning that 25% of young people who used cannabis would go on to develop psychosis.

This single piece of research, which was only ever a theory, has been at the centre of all the Reefer Madness scare stories of the last six years. The Daily Mail and Sir Robin promote it  with vigour, it is the foundation of Mary Brett’s Cannabis Skunk Sense campaign and of the deeply irresponsible hysteria from Charles Walker MP, who even goes so far as to say that cocaine is safer than cannabis.

What none of these mischievous propagandists will tell you is that three further studies have been published since, the most recent just two months ago, that disprove the COMT gene cannabis theory completely.

But it is much more than mischief. This mendacious campaign has criminalised millions of citizens, worldwide tens of thousands have been killed and millions more denied safe, effective and inexpensive relief from a wide range of diseases and conditions.  What was originally driven by oil, timber and paper interests is now driven by Big Booze and Big Pharma.  The first is terrified of a much safer, non-addictive, non-toxic alternative to its popular poison.  The second is desperately trying to patent new varieties, extracts and components of the plant in the knowledge that modern science now proves that cannabis is as close to a panacea as possible. Only discovered in 1988, we now know that the endocannabinoid system is fundamental to all aspects of life.  Endocannabinoid deficiency is now being postulated as the fundamental cause of cancers, MS, fibromyalgia and many other conditions.  The only natural source of cannabinoids outside the body is the cannabis plant.  No wonder that 100 years ago more than half of all medicines in the British pharmacopeia contained cannabis.

The Mendacious Paul Dacre

The Daily Mail’s campaign has been remarkably successful.  Make no mistake, virtually all of the reefer madness can be traced back to it.  Other newspapers have followed its lead.  Even police officers and members of the judiciary declare as facts what are actually Daily Mail scare stories. Funding for cannabis research is most easily available if a scientist subscribes to the Daily Mail agenda.  The truth and the scientific evidence have been corrupted.  Irrational prejudice has been promoted and swallowed whole by many who should know far better.  It is a bandwagon that many have chosen to jump on.

What is the truth about cannabis?  Another myth is that there is disagreement amongst scientists.  This isn’t the case.  All the evidence points in the same direction – that cannabis use does increase the risk of psychosis and that the risk is greater at a younger age. This is meaningless though unless it is placed in context and compared with the risk from other activities.  Then it is clear that, relatively speaking, cannabis is very safe.

Professor Les Iversen. "Cannabis is safe"

The bizarre truth is that Professor Les Iversen, the government’s chief drugs advisor, is on the record saying this again and again but the Daily Mail doesn’t print it and the government ignores it, only accepting the advice it chooses to.  Professor Iversen is also a long time advocate of the medicinal use of cannabis but the government continues with its inane position that “there is no medicinal value” in cannabis. Simultaneously, the Home Office has granted a unique monopoly licence to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes of cannabis a year for medicinal use.  You really couldn’t make it up, could you?

Just last month GW announced the results of clinical trials which show that its super-strong, super-concentrated, 51% THC skunk cannabis medicine Sativex has “…limited relevant adverse effects and – particularly reassuring – the drug does not appear to lead to withdrawal effects if patients suddenly stop using it.” – a far cry from the usual hysteria about psychosis and addiction.

There is a furore in the US over medical marijuana.  The DEA and the massive forces of prohibition see their business coming to an end.  They are fighting back furiously but ultimately they cannot frustrate the declared will of the people.  77% of of all Americans now favour legalising medical marijuana on a federal level.  16 states have already done so.  The market is predicted to be worth nearly $10 billion within a few years.

Last week Switzerland announced that cultivating four plants per person would no longer be an offence.  It’s one plant in Belgium, five plants in Holland and they’re even less strict in Italy and Spain. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are reforming their laws.  In Britain, cannabis production is regularly treated more severely than paedophilia or violent assault.  Just a few plants can get you more than a year in prison.  There is a brutal and disproportionate crackdown in Sheffield at the moment led by Judge Alan Goldsack QC and the South Yorkshire police.  Both the judge and police officers are on the record in local media spouting false science and encouraging hatred of cannabis users.

Medicinal cannabis is available all over Europe except Britain and France.  Residents of other European countries, prescribed cannabis by their doctor can bring it to Britain and use it without restriction under the protection of the Schengen Agreement.  A British resident would risk jail. The Daily Mail’s campaign amounts to a hate crime against cannabis users.  The Press Complaints Commission has proved itself incapable of correcting even blatant falsification of scientific evidence.  More than a million people in Britain now have a criminal record for cannabis.  According to independent research, every year our government gifts up to £9.5 billion to organised crime rather than adopting the safer, more responsible policy of tax and regulate (Taxing the UK Cannabis Market, IDMU 2011).

All these factors are combining to make change urgent and imminent.  We are witnessing the death throes of prohibition while its advocates make a desperate and frantic last stand, their final frenzy.

There is one huge obstacle left to overcome.  How can our cowardly political leaders find a way to save face while reversing the dreadful policy they have supported for so long?  If any issue exposes the hypocrisy and dishonesty of politicians and the way that the media has an improper influence, then it is cannabis.  We have to find a way to let them off the hook.

Miracle

In years to come, the attitudes that now prevail towards people that choose cannabis will be as politically incorrect as racism, homophobia or denying women the vote.  Cannabis is one of God’s greatest gifts with which mankind has had a symbiotic relationship since the dawn of time.  The prohibition experiment of the last 80 years has been a disaster.  A rational approach will bring enormous benefits to our country, save billions in wasted expenditure, create thousands of new jobs, cut crime and disorder, provide tremendously safe and effective relief to millions in pain and disability.  The time has come to embrace cannabis as the miraculous plant that it is.

Reefer Madness In A Final Frenzy - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

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

Sheffield Police And Judge Engaged In ‘Brutal Terrorism’ Against The Public - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Judge Alan Goldsack QC

SHEFFIELD’S top judge has issued a stark warning to anyone caught growing cannabis in South Yorkshire – immediate prison awaits.

“Cannabis is a dangerous drug and those who bring it into existence must be punished.”

Read the full story here.

I have written to Judge Goldsack and also to the Sheffield newspapers.

Your Honour,

I am writing to you concerning your recent statements about cannabis as published in the Sheffield Telegraph and The Star.

With great respect, you are entitled to pass judgement in court in accordance with the law and you are also entitled to your own opinions.  However, on the question of “cannabis is a dangerous drug”, this is neither a matter of law nor of opinion.  It is determined by scientific evidence and, quite clearly, cannabis cannot accurately be described as “dangerous”.

Professor Les Iversen, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the government’s chief drugs advisor is on the record repeatedly describing cannabis as “safe”.  A recent published analysis of hospital admissions, mortality, toxicity and propensity to psychosis showed cannabis as nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol.  The therapeutic ratio of cannabis (the ratio of effective dose to lethal dose) is 1:20000.  In comparison, alcohol is 1:20, paracetamol 1:35, many prescription medicines are less than 1:5.

The law is clear.  The Court of Appeal guidance is clear.  You will be aware that the Sentencing Council will publish new drug offences guidelines in October .  However, you do have discretion and there are many, many different types of cannabis growers.

Even where commercial gain is the objective I still find it difficult to understand how growing cannabis can routinely be treated more severely than violent assault or crimes of paedophilia.  This is a real loss of proportionality in our judicial system.  However, where, as in many cases, cannabis is grown for personal and private consumption, often for medicinal purposes, it is an affront to natural justice that a severe penalty can be imposed, let alone the travesty of common sense that prison amounts to.

Research published only this month shows that approximately three tonnes of cannabis is consumed in Britain every day.  The demand is colossal and prohibition has been an expensive failure.  A tax and regulate policy would contribute a net £6.7 billion per annum to the UK exchequer and massively reduce all health and social harms.  The law is the law as it stands but inevitably, change is on the way.  Science, medicine and economics demand it.

I appeal to you to be merciful to those who grow cannabis for their personal and private use and to discharge completely anyone who needs it as medicine.  There are now hundreds of peer reviewed, scientific studies that prove how effective it is for many chronic conditions.

I am grateful for being able to bring these points to your attention.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

“Judge Vows To Put Anyone Growing Cannabis Immediately Behind Bars” - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Baroness Angela Browning

I wrote to Baroness Browning back on 16th May shortly after she was appointed as the new drugs minister.   You can read that first part of this story here: A Welcome Note To The New Drugs Minister.

I wrote to her again on 27th June.  You can read that here: Baroness Browning On Cannabis Part 2

I wrote again today:

Dear Baroness Browning,

I refer to my previous emails and letters to you concerning the medicinal use of cannabis.

Despite four emails and two letters since you were appointed drugs minister, I haven’t received anything from you which even attempts to deal with the issues I have raised.  That is bad enough in what is supposed to be a democratic country but now I have absolute proof that the Home Office is providing false and misleading information about medicinal cannabis.  This is a very serious matter which involves dishonesty towards people who suffer from dreadful illnesses and disabilities.  It requires your urgent attention.

In correspondence from the Home Office, enquirers are now being told that the medicinal use of cannabis will not be permitted, nor even reviewed, because the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has not “identified any medicinal benefits”.  However, the ACMD has offered no such advice, nor could it.  I have a letter from Professor Les Iversen, chair of the ACMD (copy attached) in which he states unequivocally that it “…is not constituted to consider the medical benefits of any drug”.

This is not something that has happened just once or twice.  We have the evidence of the many occasions when this explanation has been given in writing.  Clearly, it is Home Office policy and it is dishonest. It must be corrected.  It is nothing more than an excuse because there is no reasonable explanation for the denial of medicinal cannabis.

The matter of the re-scheduling of Sativex brings this to a head.  Any attempt to re-schedule Sativex as anything but cannabis will be dishonest.  There is no pharmacological difference between cannabis and Sativex.  I give you notice that the government will be subject to legal action if it seeks to re-schedule Sativex dishonestly or in a misleading way.

For your convenience, I am attaching copies of the emails and letters I have sent previously.  As leader of CLEAR, I see a great deal of correspondence between the Home Office and our members.  The policy you are pursuing is not only dishonest, it is also shockingly cruel, deeply unjust and flies in the face of all the scientific evidence.

If you want to know what your chief drugs advisor, Professor Iversen, actually thinks about medicinal cannabis than I suggest you watch the video of his British Pharmacological Society lecture last year “Bringing Cannabis Back Into the Medicine Cabinet”: http://vimeo.com/19315276

CLEAR is now co-ordinating the efforts of approximately 30 individuals who have a doctor’s prescription for medicinal cannabis.  They are just the tip of the iceberg and there is no reasonable argument against permitting them access to the medicine their doctors have recommended.  Unless you can offer me some definite indication of change, we will be pursuing this through the courts.  This will cost a great deal of public money as well as adding to the suffering of those involved.  Will you not now please reconsider this terribly cruel, unfair and irrational policy?

As I have already explained, this does not require any change in the law, merely for you to authorise the issue of import licences for Bedrocan, medicinal cannabis from the Dutch government’s official producer.  If you will not do this, when it is required in order to fill a doctor’s prescription, please will you explain to me why?

Please understand that these questions are not going away.  Ignoring them or providing misleading answers will not achieve anything except to prolong pain and suffering.  There are millions of people in Britain who will not stand for any more dishonesty, deception, misinformation or procrastination on this.  It is time for your department to stop playing games and deal with this properly.  Continued failure to do so can only add to growing suspicion about the government’s relationship with GW Pharmaceuticals which has been granted a unique and unparalleled monopoly.

I repeat, again, my request for a meeting to discuss this.  The government is not dealing with this in a reasonable way.  Please will you arrange an appointment for me to come and see you?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

Baroness Browning On Cannabis Part 3 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis is ruining lives – MP”, the Hertfordshire Mercury, 15-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Cheshunt-and-Waltham/Cannabis-is-ruining-lives-MP-14062011.htm

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

1. This article breaches the Editors’ Code Of Practice clause 1.i) in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. The article is presented as a news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

PCC Complaint. The Hertfordshire Mercury, 15th June 2011 - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis ‘Russian roulette’ warning”, the Newmarket Journal, 13-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/regional/cannabis_russian_roulette_warning_1_2762093

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

1. This article breaches the Editors’ Code Of Practice clause 1.i) in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. The article is presented as a news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

PCC Complaint. The Newmarket Journal, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party

Dear Sirs,

“Cannabis ‘Russian roulette’ warning”, the Bearsden Herald, 13-06-11

I wish to make a complaint concerning the above article which is still available online at: http://www.bearsdenherald.co.uk/news/cannabis_russian_roulette_warning_1_1672386

I make the complaint on my own account but also in my capacity as the Leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), a UK political party, of P.O.Box 674, Salfords, Redhill, RH1 9BN. For the purposes of correspondence, please use my personal address as below.

1. This article breaches the Editors’ Code Of Practice clause 1.i) in that it publishes inaccurate, misleading and distorted information.

2. It also breaches clause 1.iii) in that it fails to distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

3. The article is presented as a news story, not an opinion piece. It should therefore be concerned only with facts – unless comment or conjecture is clearly distinguished.

4. Although the article is presented as a report of what Charles Walker said in the House of Commons, that cannot absolve the newspaper from its responsibilities under clause 1.i) and 1.iii).

5. In the second paragraph, the article states that cannabis is “highly toxic and highly dangerous”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It is a scientific fact that cannabis is extremely low in toxicity. This has been confirmed by every expert on the subject including the government’s chief drugs advisor, Professor Les Iversen. The therapeutic ratio of cannabis, the scientific measure of toxicity, is at least 1:20000 and perhaps as little as 1:40000. Neither is cannabis “highly dangerous”. Even if one argues that it is dangerous at all, which is difficult to support, it is absurd to describe it as “highly dangerous” in comparison to any other drug or activity. No deaths have ever been recorded as a sole result of cannabis. Whatever measure one chooses, cannabis is a remarkably safe substance compared to anything else. For instance, in 2009, hospital admissions for cannabis were 750, for peanuts 3000, for alcohol in excess of one million.

6. In the fifth paragraph, the article talks about “addiction to skunk cannabis”. This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. Cannabis is not addictive. It is recognised that dependence may occur in some users but this is at a comparatively low level. According to the Institute of Medicine report in 1999, dependency risks are: tobacco 32%, heroin 23%, cocaine 17%, alcohol 15%, cannabis 9%.

7. In the seventh paragraph, the article states “Child and adolescent mental health services across this country are dealing with thousands of youngsters and adolescents who are suffering severe psychotic illnesses and there is a causal link with skunk cannabis.” This is a wholly false statement. It is a lie. Professor Glyn Lewis, of the University of Bristol, internationally recognised as the pre-eminent authority on the subject, confirmed only a few weeks ago that there is no certainty of a causal link between cannabis use and psychosis. This is an hysterical and grossly irresponsible statement which a newspaper should not publish without a prominent warning or disclaimer.

8. In the eighth paragraph, the article states “…one in four carried a faulty gene for dopamine transmission and if a youngster had that gene and smoked skunk cannabis they were six times more likely to get a psychotic illness.” This is inaccurate, misleading and distorted information. It relates to research published in 2005 into a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene which is present in 25% of the population. Just two years later, researchers at the University of Cardiff announced in the British Journal of Psychiatry that the link between cannabis use and the COMT gene was “unfounded”.

9. The blatant misinformation, untruths and inaccuracies contained within this article are so extreme that the newspaper has to take responsibility for publishing them without clearly distinguishing them as not being factual. Mr Walker was protected by parliamentary privilege when he spoke these untruths but that cannot protect the newspaper from repeating them without a very prominent warning or disclaimer.

I would be grateful if you would deal with this complaint at your earliest convenience. I shall be happy to provide any further information required or to give oral evidence in support.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Reynolds

PCC Complaint. The Bearsden Herald, 13th June 2011 – NOT UPHELD - CLEAR UK: Cannabis Law Reform Party