Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Legalise Cannabis Alliance To Fight Barnsley By-Election

with 22 comments

Following the resignation of Eric Illsley, a by-election will be called in the Barnsley Central parliamentary constituency.

The Legalise Cannabis Alliance has announced that it will be contesting the election.  A candidate will be selected who can use the opportunity to put the cannabis issue back on the political agenda.

Written by Peter Reynolds

February 8, 2011 at 10:57 pm

Posted in Politics

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Oh yesssss…. Most exellent work

    John Ellis

    February 8, 2011 at 11:48 pm

  2. This is taking off quick! Nice work again.

  3. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr Hemp, Peter Reynolds. Peter Reynolds said: Legalise Cannabis Alliance To Fight Barnsley By-Election […]

  4. Great news guys! Good to see the organisation being so proactive. Best of luck and keep fighting the good fight.


    February 9, 2011 at 10:07 am

  5. Excellent news!

    Lee Gramson

    February 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

  6. Your facebook shared post replies give a chilling insight into what your up against on the people level. Good luck with that peter, hope you’ve got a flame retardant suit, looks like your gonna need it.


    February 9, 2011 at 11:20 am

  7. Its important to find a candidate locally who has some brevity already. As an outsider its always harder. Eric Ilkleys seat has been occupied by him for decades, just as jack Straws Blacburn seat. If Labour replaces him with a monkey they will win this seat.
    nevertheless I wish all involved good luck and many votes


    February 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm

  8. Off topic here, but have you considered reposting the MP PM draft letter published on HomeGrownOutlaw’s blog?

    I think it’s a good idea and as many people as possible should take part.


    February 9, 2011 at 1:12 pm

  9. Hi everyone, I’ve just taken a look at the demographic of said Barnsley and to be totally honest, think its the wrong tree to bark up. I am sure that there are good reasons to target this specific however, I would suggest that a greater degree of success might be gained by heading south. A London borough for example. Certainly, the demographic of any London borough is far richer in diversity and its arguable (although I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone) that there would be a greater degree of liberal attitude. If not London then, any other city would offer a different, greater potential?? Barnsley, with a population in the region of 250k of stalwart Northern attitude…good sound folk etc.. Can’t really see them up in smoke to the same density of other possible target population zones.

    Why Barnsley Peter? Is it simply that they have the next due election?


    February 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    • That’s right Nick. The objective isn’t to win a seat. It’s to get the issue back on the national political agenda.

      Peter Reynolds

      February 9, 2011 at 1:44 pm

  10. A justifiable action then. Be an interesting test bed to judge reaction and to be seen to be campaigning ‘their’ way. Is or has a press release gone out to all the nationals?


    February 9, 2011 at 2:25 pm

  11. BTW your S.E.O appears to be doing rather well. Type Barnsley By Election into Google and your ranking 4th.
    On a down side though I’ve just noticed that the disgusting Nick Griffin may also be running in the same which could divert the much needed pr return.


    February 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    • Or provide another reason to vote LCA!!

      Peter Reynolds

      February 9, 2011 at 2:54 pm

      • Very smooth.. your gonna do just fine as a politician Mr Reynolds or should you be referred to as ‘The Honourable’ Mr Reynolds from now on.


        February 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm

  12. I’ve just made a comment on the BBC Have Your Say:

    ‘What is needed is more police policing our streets. But, of course there are not enough and the proposition of having a real deterrent also does not exist because of the pound note cost.
    I suggest radical reform . To start, stop the losing and ridiculous war on drugs. It doesn’t work, criminalising generally otherwise law abiding citizens. This a war never to be won since the dawn of man. Regulate and legalise taking the taxation money to re-enforce government coffers. The current status quo ensures only one thing CRIME. The criminals are gifted the drug industry adulterating and selling to children. STOP THIS MADNESS NOW.s ‘Have Your Say’:

    I am going to make a concerted effort to bring the subject up on any and every platform I can.

    If we all do the same maybe once a day our voices will merg and along with the far greater efforts of those like Peter we will help to continue the process which i feel is really starting to make progress.



    February 9, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    • Please think of another expression Nick instead of ‘war on drugs’ – it does a great diservice to the experience of oppression on the ground with the devastation and human misery caused by this illegal ‘war on all the people who use or might ever want the possibility of using cannabis’.

      Darryl Bickler

      February 9, 2011 at 9:12 pm

      • Your quite right Darryl, I was simply coining their title for it.


        February 10, 2011 at 10:35 am

      • Thank you. What I am encounterring is that every time people who actually know what is the best language to use to bring this home, they do not and justify it as clear communication, practical, not wanting to confuse people, preferring the common parlance, everyday language etc. I find this ironic. I was just reading a real bigot’s contribution on the Raabe affair, he simply cannot undestand why his criticism of cannabis as unnatural is offensive. Rather than focus on the obvious point that cannabis is of course natural, we should see this as a depersonalisation of the issue, he is not saying cannabis is unnatural – he is saying that people who use it are ungodly, against nature and engaged in some kind of peversion. My tip for the decade – always bring the debate back to the arbitrary treatment of persons by transforming the language that seeks to talk about the legal status of drugs, to that about drug USERS.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 10, 2011 at 10:56 am

      • I hesitate to respond Darryl because I really don’t want to get into another circular discussion with you. Neither do I want to undermine the very positive and constructive aspects of your work.

        As I’ve said a hundred million times before (approximately), I understand and agree with the principles on which you base your crusade for accurate language. However, where we diverge is when the complexity of the construction you insist on overwhelms and obscures the meaning. Also, what I find ironic, is when your precision about language and particular phrases is maintained alongside schoolboy errors in grammar and spelling.

        I haven’t commented on this elsewhere because I applaud your current efforts with Jason and the last thing I would want to do is quibble in a way that would be destructive. However, if you’re going to be so insistent on precision of phrasing, it behoves you to ensure that all the basic rules are followed and that less is almost always more when writing about complex subjects.

        If I may, briefly, hoist you on your own petard, it’s not the language but the people you’re writing for that should be your main concern.

        Peace and keep up the good work!

        Peter Reynolds

        February 10, 2011 at 11:57 am

  13. Dear Peter Reynolds
    I use herbal pot, not by smoking it but by eating it and I have come to the conclusion that it is the tobacco that causes all the bad press about pot, mental illness etc. Think about it, it is the addictive nicotine in the smoked tobacco that makes you smoke more and hold it down so that the carcinogens from the tobacco enter deep into the lungs
    causing all sorts of medical problems.
    Now, back to me eating it. It takes longer to come on, an hour to an hour and a half, but it lasts longer, not like the short tobacco THC hit.
    I feel and state that the brain has cannabis receptors to receive THC and other cannabinoids by eating only, because God included the gene in Gods
    Original Design. I state that it is genetically programmed into the human genome to use THC and other cannabinoids.
    I also state that professional geneticists will confirm that I state it as it is!
    Now Peter, when the geneticists confirm that it is in mankinds genetic makeup to use THC by eating ONLY, governments the world over will have to legalise the God-Given plant.
    Think about it, smoking and tobacco only started in the European world when it was brought back from the Americas.
    Those Native American people knew damn well that tobacco was addictive, they also knew damn well that it would kill the smoker slowly over a period of decades. Forget the ‘runs’, tobacco was Montezumas true revenge for the white man changing their lands and way of life forever.
    I do not smoke or drink and I exercise regularly and eat healthily, and the synergistic effect of the THC and other cannabinoids make me absolutely SHINE.
    Yours sincerely
    Pierre Iwan Goj
    White Cliffs of Dover

    Pierre Goj

    February 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: