Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter!

with 89 comments

Call Cameron To Account

Following the example of my comrade-in-arms, Jason “HomeGrown Outlaw” Reed, here is another letter writing campaign.

Yesterday, on YouTube, David Cameron gave a shockingly inaccurate and misleading answer to a question about cannabis.  You can read the full story and watch the video here.

I have written to Mr Cameron asking that he meet me as the leader of the LCA so that I can prove to him how wrong he is.  Now what is needed is for hundreds, preferably thousands of us, to write to Mr Cameron asking him to arrange that meeting.

What I would suggest is that you print out a copy of my letter and then attach it to a letter of your own.

You can download and print my letter here.

I suggest your letter goes something like this:

(Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter.  That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)

Dear Mr Cameron,

I was very concerned by what you said recently on YouTube about marijuana.  The leader of the LCA has written to you asking for a meeting (copy attached).  He represents my interests so will you please arrange to see him?

Yours etc

Mr Cameron’s address is:

David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street

If you want to take it one step further, send a copy to your MP too.

(Find out who you MP is at Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter. That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)

Dear (insert name),

I was very concerned by what David Cameron said recently on YouTube about marijuana.  The leader of the LCA has written to him asking for a meeting (copy attached). He represents my interests so please, will you ask Mr Cameron to see him?

Yours etc

Your MP’s address is:

(insert name) MP
House Of Commons

Written by Peter Reynolds

February 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm

89 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. at the end of camerons ignorant grunting he mentioned that the goverments stance is an “anti drugs policy” not an evidence based one , pure corruption from the horses husbands mouth


    February 26, 2011 at 7:04 pm

  2. Fraudulent misrepresentation? Outright lying in public office? Misleading and lying to the electorate?
    Which toxins is he talking about? Anyone know? As I understand it, no toxins have ever been found despite exhaustive efforts by the government to prove that they do.
    I think he’s been dipping into Brokendick’s stash?
    They are both clearly wasted on something. Maybe its just their own egos.
    I suggest that this is a time to unite with the likes of Transform and all the other lobbying bodies across the UK. The sums of our parts…..
    I really believe this Peter. LCA Great.. LCA with Transform and others would have a far louder voice. Surely there are laws about lying in public office. He should be called on this. It is demonstrable that he is lying and misleading the people of the nation he is paid to govern.


    February 26, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    • I totally Agree.. I do not pay taxes into a system for the system to broadcast lies and misinformation. Totally inappropriate but just goes to show the kind of politics we are up against today. I say up against because this party will never represent anything that relates to my life because I am not a corporation.


      February 26, 2011 at 8:51 pm

  3. Fountain pen and Smythsons paper at the ready ;)- I am going to send my letters Recorded Delivery!


    February 26, 2011 at 7:45 pm

  4. I’m going to write to my MP to enquire his position on the matter.

    However, I want to be fully prepared – has anyone got any direct links to peer-reviewed studies that confirm Cannabis is both not “very, very toxic” and does not cause “huge mental health problems”. Such as or


    February 26, 2011 at 8:24 pm

  5. anti drug policy?

    Big pharma pulling his member for him.


    Letter sent!

    Architect NZ

    February 26, 2011 at 10:27 pm

  6. I honestly cant believe someone who has been educated at some of the finest schools in the world can be so ignorant, Peter – thankyou from each and everyone of us that use cannabis not only medically but recreastionally as well, I strongly believe if people power can help free a country it can only go on and help free us to use cannabis without the fear of prosecution.


    February 26, 2011 at 10:41 pm

  7. If I can be any help from the Cannabis College in Amsterdam. The untruths that Cameron and his cohorts preach, have to STOP NOW. I am doing evything possible to get the laws overturned back home in my beautiful England and I SHALL NOT REST UNTIL THIS HAPPENS. I accuse you Cameron of failing to provide my father who suffered from Parkinson’s disease,the very BEST tratment that he could have had. One joint of cannabis made him feel normal again and he had complete relief from all the effects of the disease.

    For you Cameron, stating that Cannabis is a toxic plant, then you are calling my deceased father a liar
    andI shall NOT ACCEPT THIS. By the way, he was a Senior Architect for the Metropolitan Police!


    All power to you Peter and our vibes for the coming
    chalenges ahead.

    Andy Tours

    February 27, 2011 at 9:41 am

  8. It’s kind of rich for Cameron to be spreading lies about cannabis. Didn’t he get into trouble at Eton for possession? He only got a slap on the wrist if I’m not mistaken.


    February 27, 2011 at 10:39 am

  9. If it does become legal; it will because it means that the Government will be slapping a thumping great tax on it!

    The Debt Collector

    February 27, 2011 at 5:42 pm

  10. The only problem with this is – you’re likely to get your door kicked in by the gestapo looking for a loft full of “Killer skunk”.

    Many of us are having to keep silent, as we need to keep under the radar.

    Mr Bimble

    February 27, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    • Do you really think so? Do they take pops at bloggers?
      My lofts full of bloody christmas decorations so they’d be a bit disappointed in me!


      February 27, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    • They know where I am. They can be sure of finding me with up to, ooh, three or four grams anytime they want to call. It’s in my own home, behind closed doors, my own business. If that’s the way they want to waste public money – bring it on!

      Peter Reynolds

      February 27, 2011 at 9:00 pm

      • I asked you before but you didn’t reply – when (if) ‘they’ bring it on, what will your tactics be? Plead not guitly? Upon what legal basis?

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 2:41 am

      • IMHO i would use the No consent, no contract, no confidence approach. The courts have no legal binding anyhow if you dont give them consent.


        February 28, 2011 at 12:42 pm

      • Also there is the Corpus delecti angle, no crime committed no punishment involved. Its an OLLLLLD Roman maxim of law that the law society abide by and cannot break.

        A crime has to be proven to have been committed, its on the onus of the solicitor and the courts to prove there has been damage, loss or harm. If no damage, harm or loss is involved there is no crime… read up on it.


        February 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      • Whoops a daisy, I was asking Peter as he is brazenly telling everyone he is involved with what is considered to be criminal activity. If he signs up to this advice (freeman or some ancient Roman law) then that will doubtless turn off a few more lights from his followers. BTW – the courts impose laws, there is no need to show actual harm – the govt can administer the drug laws with a view to reducing the harm caused to society. Whilst the policy can be challenged, yoiu cannot just go in and say it doesn’t apply as (a) I dont consent (no consent is reqd for criminal law, it applies to you because you are an adult on UK soil), or (b) the Romans wouldn’t like it (harm can be entirely notional).

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      • Actually you can…, search youtube for freeman on the land and council tax. Statutes are UNLAWFUL and require consent, its up to you how you give consent or not.


        February 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm

      • I won’t comment on the council tax debacle. I think you will find that criminal acts can be prosecuted even if you do not think you are bound by them. I dont know what you mean by saying statutes are unlawful – actually spare me the details, with all respect I dont want to get into this, I think its a con.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      • “actually spare me the details, with all respect I dont want to get into this, I think its a con.”

        What you think lawful rebellion is a con? I think landlords of old included in the magna carta would’ve had something to say about that eh.

        I know quite a few people who would vehemently disagree with you. The reason why its so frowned upon is because of the mad max syndrome. People will disregard the law and chaos will ensue.., its rubbish but typical of the sensationalist bullshit people in general come out with.

        Take for instance your DVLA car registration.., where on that registration does it say you OWN car? it doesnt, you’re the registered keeper, thats how the gov can get away with taking your vehicle when its not taxed etc. Few know that you’re legally allowed to travel without tax/insurance/mot etc etc etc under the common law right to travel.

        Its a grand illusion of epic proportions.

        Criminal acts whereby someone is caused loss or harm can be prosecuted within the full force of the law, no-one is saying they cant. However where there is no corpus delecti there is no case. People have no clue in general about this and soon as they walk into court without announcing their sovereign rights and intentions they give the power to the courts and your open to any misuse of the law with no legal leg to stand on.


        February 28, 2011 at 3:52 pm

      • I’m sorry but they didnt create a fantasy structure that can be undone in this way. The harm under the MODA is defined as ‘social harm’ – whilst it is of course a moot point whether you do cause any harm (and I would say not by growing your own cannabis), you cannot challenge the law in this way – it is enough for the govt to talk about protecting the country with these measures from the spread of cannabis use for example (and it doesnt matter if they are effective or not). If you can, prove it, go into a police station now with your stash and then try it, otherwise please do stop spreading dangerous misinformation.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      • agreed!


        February 28, 2011 at 9:14 pm

  11. This is what we need here.

    It’s a start 😉


    February 27, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    • Wow, wouldn’t that be great!


      February 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm

  12. I have said it before, and it was accepted by Peter that he must not make wild claims about who he represents. A couple of dozen people at the LCA does NOT authorise him to claim: “I represent the interests of at least two million regular users of cannabis and perhaps as many as 10 million occasional users in Britain. This is a huge proportion of the population and on their behalf I am requesting a meeting with you.” You do not speak for anyone other than the LCA so please stop claiming you do.

    Darryl Bickler

    February 28, 2011 at 2:47 am

    • Darryl, who needs enemies or opponents when they have friends like you, eh?

      To the best of my knowledge, I am the only elected representative of cannabis users in Britain. I regard it not only as quite proper but, in fact, as an obligation and responsibility that I should seek to represent the interests of all cannabis users.

      Now let’s be careful and precise about the use of language here shall we Darryl? I don’t represent all cannabis users but I do seek to represent their interests.

      I regularly and frequently support your and DEA’s efforts in the quagmire that is British drug policy Darryl. I never snipe or troll at you or any of your colleagues. It would be so much more pleasant and effective for us all if you could extend the same courtesy to me. Bickering and quibbling with each other does not help our cause.

      Peter Reynolds

      February 28, 2011 at 8:55 am

      • Whatever the LCA want, you do not represent cannabis users, or their interests which pretty much amounts to the same thing. It may be your aspiration, but writing to the PM claiming that you do represent all these people’s interests is plain ridiculous – there are plenty of people out there you really wouldn’t want to represent their interests, and a much bigger number who take serious issue with your fantastical claims. Friends or enemies, it all depends on your conduct actually, stop saying that you are my friend and just act like you are with the integrity your assumed role requires, and then we won’t have to have these conversations. You have about 24 votes I understand, good for you – if you want I can start a list of people who don’t want to be represented by you, although obviously the vast majority of the millions of people who’s interests you seek to represent have never heard of you or me. It’s simple really, just represent your supporters and stop this, then we can get back to arguing about the language content which as you know I am very dissatisfied with despite your laudible efforts to produce high quality propaganda.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 9:23 am

      • Really whats the problem here? Are we all not on the same side? do we all not want the cannabis laws changed?.

        This in fighting and childish bickering needs to stop if the pro cannabis lobby is to go futhur than the tie died hippy raging about wanting to get stoned legally.
        Can we not put aside differences and work together then sort out the details at a later date?

        I really cant imagine WHY people are against this.., maybe i have the wrong end of the stick apfu.


        February 28, 2011 at 10:40 am

      • Darryl, I don’t propose to engage with you anymore now. I thought that you had realised the negative effect of your trolling last time you did this. It is self-evident to everybody except you.

        The Drug Equality Alliance is doing admirable work in calling the government to account over its maladministration of the MoDA. I shall continue to support it in that. It’s just a pity that, unlike your colleagues, you can’t extend me the same courtesy.

        Peter Reynolds

        February 28, 2011 at 11:25 am

      • All I have to say is “united we stand, divided we fall”.
        We really need some unity in this struggle. Anyone who is against the persecution of cannabis users is my friend. We can sort out our differences once we have ended the persecution.


        February 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm

      • Darryl, I’m not a member of any of these pro-legalisation groups and really I’ve only stumbed across this blog in the last few weeks yet i’m quite happy for Peter to claim to represent my interests.
        I can’t imagine any one of the 2 million regular Cannabis users, or any one of the up to 10 million occasional Cannabis users, would prefer for the laws to remain unchanged. I’m sure that whether they stand up and make a deal of it or not, they would all much rather that Cannabis was legalised. Therefore, legalisation of Cannabis is in their interests. Peter, like every other campaigner out there, represents these interests – because they are the ones getting up and making efforts to change the law. So really, it’s more than fair to say that Peter represents the interests of all 10 million users.


        February 28, 2011 at 1:50 pm

      • Do read my other posts please – you simply cannot legalise cannabis – this is why we are stuck. The law regulates people, not drugs. No drug is illegal. They have powers to control you in respect of your drugs, this under policy extinguishes most of your rights, but this is very different from drugs being illegal. We must get out of this trap.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      • You’re just nit picking the wording of what I said, i’ll rephrase then. It’s in our interests for the POSSESSION OF Cannabis to be legalised, and Peter represents that interest. Better?


        February 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      • Yes, possession and supply, its not not picking. peter can represent those who think he represents them, he doesnt represent me.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    • Darryl I am not a member of the LCA or UKCIA, I am however a medical user of cannabis and have replaced all my toxic medication with cannabis, and now living a fairly healthy life. If you were dependant on cannabis to keep your health, then I think you would agree, as I do that anyone especialy Peter that gives there time, and stands up for cannabis users, is speaking for us all.


      February 28, 2011 at 11:39 am

      • No, he is speaking for himself, the LCA and you and anyone else who agrees. He cannot assume because he gives his time that we want him as a spokesperson for the whole UK. Whether I am dependent or not is not the issue – I expect him to present himself in his truthful capacity rather than claiming to speak for all users. I expect him not to use the false language lies adopted by govt to justify their position. I take issue with it because the core point is that the whole problem rests on the supposed legality and illegal;ity of drugs, this is false and what the govt rely upon. So far peter just repeats teh same old material. We need a new approach, and sliockness isn’t enough, we need to understand what is hapening and why. In any event whilst I feel you should have cannabis, running a divisive campaign showcasing medical use will not create the change we need – we need to use universalist principles for all persons, these are freedoms we must go for – I find if difficult to support a medical use campaign because it just doesn’t add up – medical use should not be defined, all use is ‘medical’.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm

  13. I gotta agree with jimbob. Arguing the toss over the wording of a letter is not only petty but to do it in public is counter productive. Like it or not peter is the face of lca. I fear the reason the lca has been so throughly in effective in recent years is down to such internal biccering.
    What the lca has now is a spokesman with not only drive but focus. He has reacted to disinformation that our pm has voiced in a timely manner with a call to arms. Should we have a meeting, take some minutes while drinking real ale? Or should we infact stand up and be counted?

    sorry to be negative but the time for infighting has long past.


    February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am

    • Agreed dumnp_pharma, its utterly stupid to have infighting when the pro lobby is working towards a change in the law.

      I put it to you Darryl, if you want a change in the law regarding cannabis, like it or not Peter DOES represent YOUR interests.

      If you dont like how he is going about it get on board with constructive criticism or really get the F$£% out and start your own movement. As far as i have seen LCA has done NOTHING in the past 5-8 yrs to change cannabis laws. They may have complained a little, made a couple of youtube vids complaining again but really NOTHING has changed, they have been wholly ineffective. It real website terms the LCA has been dead for a long time with only a couple of die hard users/admins and a small handful of users keeping it barely going.

      I for one am applauding Peters approach, its about time the LCA had a fresh face with motivation. I didnt like the idea of peter going into the LCA in the first place because of my attitude towards their non-action and general perception of the avg cannabis user. Things NEED to change and inevitably some people will fall by the wayside as change takes place.

      I could equally say Darryl, that your minority of people who dont agree with Peters methods are just that…, a minority. The LCA in the past didnt represent my ideals or thinking on this subject, it is getting there now as far as my ideals are concerned. Lets face it past campaigns have been an utter failure things need to change. whether it’ll be for the good or not we will have to see, but anything is better than the failure of the LCA’s past campaigns.


      February 28, 2011 at 11:58 am

      • Just because it was crap before doesn’t mean that we should accept peter’s approach uncritically. I do have my own organisation, and this is not professional jealousy, it is simply that I know what the problem is in one very important aspect. Progress depends upon people who are getting the media attention capitialising on that. If they continuie to work in the old way and use the wrong language, then irrespective of what tehy think they are achieving, in my view they are compounding the problem. it is because the govt need to maintain the illusion of legal and illegal drugs being the outcome of the law that this is happening – its all lies I can asure you. No drug can be legal or illegal in law, we must explain to people that drugs are not really controlled in any sense, not on the streets or even in law. What are controlled are people’s rights to property in drugs, its a v imp distinction, we must chalenge Cameron when he says he will not legalise illegal drugs. This is part of the lie, you cannot legalise drugs, you cannot, illegal drugs do not exist. This language creates the artificial divide between drug users, between people. It is built on this, its not a technical point, it is the point.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      • “This is part of the lie, you cannot legalise drugs, you cannot, illegal drugs do not exist. This language creates the artificial divide between drug users, between people. It is built on this, its not a technical point, it is the point.”

        Indeed, this brings me right back to my earlier point in another reply. Cameron said he wants to keep illegal drugs illegal.., but how can he when they aren’t illegal in the first place?

        What we are battling with is called “legalese” ( the language of the law society ), its not meant to be “understood” by the common man its purely a law society fiction given weight by the government and given the full force of law by the consent of the governed.

        Even in the Tory manifesto before election they admitted in writing “Policing relies on consent”, he has also said in PMQ’s fleetingly that the “government still rule by consent”. There is weight here that needs to be played just as insidiously as the government plays it.

        Lets face it for years and years the government has had drug policy wrong, the only reason they have gotten away with it is because WE HAVE LET THEM. Its time to play them at their own game in the media and with the power of words. Time for niceties and subdued complaining is OVER.

        Why you cant get on board with peter is beyond me, offer solution instead of petty bickering otherwise your efforts will do nothing but hinder the LCA and itll turn out to be a none event like before…, or is this what your wanting?

        IMHO the world according to jimbob we should get George Soros on board ( he dontated $1m to the recently lost ballad of prop19 in California) see if he can make a donation to the LCA and use any donations in a direct attack on government policy as publicly as possible. The media should be publicly accountable for the lies as well as the governments past and present also. Trouble is how do you get your campaign out there using the media if your going to drag them through the dirt aswell.


        February 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm

      • actually its not legalese really – its conceptual. First focus on the fact that people are being oppressed, not drugs. Then look at how iots being done and under what authority, the authority comes from the misunderstanding inherrent in the phrase ‘alcohol is a ‘legal drug’ – we have to take it apart to see what is happening. Yes policy says that it is illegal to possess some drugs, but is this consistent with the actual law? Have govt addressed themselves to the right questions? No they haven’t – they think that cannabis is illegal, if they understood even this we could expose them, and there is no chance of doing this with campaigns running free, talking about ‘illegal cannabis’ and then failing to address the issue, instead preferring to criticise the messenger, usually very nastily. We cannot be united yet, not because whilst I do not agree with these matters tactically, but because some points are essential. For example whilst I am against divisive campaigns for medical cannabis (yes it is divisive already in content), I can ignore much of that as see it is a focused issue which people are perfectly entitled to make. What I cannot countenance is people making the problem worse by making publoicity about illegal drugs and all that nonsense when they should know better. How can I join in and support something that is diametrically opposed to what i stand for? Forget the sentiment, look at the content. Peter represents the LCA – fact. Illegal drugs do not exist -fact. All I want is accuracy and facts, we can all agree on facts, that is what science is about, removing opinion by talking about what we know, not what we think. If Peter is accurate then i will not criticise hios work even though I do not support his methodology of focussing on medical use. If he spreads the prohibitionist memes, then I will pick him up until he stops. I have irritated the Vienna Declaration people and Transform and many others with this, and I do not regret any of it, i don’t care if it annoys people, what’s important is the truth and making the transformation. Using the wrong language works against progress, that’s it, some people see it,others cannot. I can see it now but it took me a long time, its not a peripheral issue at all, it is the key to opening this up.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm

      • Ah right now i see your point Darryl.., and i have to say i agree. If the onus is put on medicinal use the gov will just bring out a synthetic version of thc much like they are doing america. They have tried here in the UK with sativex (although not synthetic) also. America is on the verge of rescheduling THC but not herbal cannabis.., i mean eh? wtf is that all about?

        The only trouble with your way of thinking (that i can see) is, how do you start to make the government accountable for their lies? I mean they pretty much own the courts and law society or any avenue of mass media.., so how do you get it out there in a language that your avg joe anti cannabis person will understand?

        Indeed should the pro lobby be even concerned with that and just go straight for the government/law society jugular?.Personally i think using the medicinal angle (although fully understandable) could do more damage than good and end up with a situation similar to what i mentioned above.

        Again its back to the old question on “How do we effectively make government accountable for lies?” Indeed do the pro lobby need to do this at all? Is it really just a matter of repealing, not fit for purpose, statutes and acts? The MoD act is a real piece of work that’s actually quite gracious in its execution, but at the end of the day acts and statutes are just that and not technically lawful until you consent to them.
        Thats an easy way out tbh, we need more clarification if these acts are to be reviewed, tieing them up in their own language would be a good option, whether it’ll be effective is another matter.

        At the end of the day we need to government to recognise that cannabis is not illegal like you said, its acts by people concerning cannabis that’s illegal according to them. We need people to stand up enmasse and say NO LONGER will you treat us like children by attempting to undermine our personal sovereign rights by passing unlawful acts and continuing with them if they are not fit for purpose. Cannabis related or not your going to see a whole lot more people kicking up a shit about statutes and acts the longer we go into this poor tory ideology of cuts and the “big society”.

        The tory ideology of the big society where a government reduces its “top down” controls and relinquishes them to local councils might be a place to start.

        Still the Corpus delecti seems to be a good way to go as a start. Really if i decide to grow my own cannabis and ingest that.., where is the harm? who have i caused harm to? who have i caused loss to? This has to be proven in a criminal court, there are NO exceptions afaik.

        And yes legalese is conceptual but that still doesnt make it any less effective in the law societies eyes and it certainly doesnt stop them from carrying out unlawful acts, infact it enhances them greatly.

        So to conclude (phew) Couldnt you see yourself as part of this newly enacted movement in the LCA but just keep plugging your personal preference? I see that your opinion carries weight and it would be important to have that along too. Lets face it ANY ammo the pro lobby comes up with no matter how many people disagree its all on the same page afterall?


        February 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm

      • so come on then Darryl, what is your organisation, how long have you been campaining and have you achieved anything.


        February 28, 2011 at 10:51 pm

  14. OK, sounds constructive. Yes, not only is the distinction between medical use and other uses entirely meaningless, but we are playing right into their hands, basically because we are on the back foot, people think what is the fluffiest thing we can say, oh yes, look at the disabled and what hemp products can do. Sadly this isnt fooling anyone, whilst the message is true, we all know what cannabis does, it makes you stoned. lets get over this, that’s why 99% of users use it, and what’s wring with that? Being stoned is a perfectly legitmate activity that is recreational, medicinal, therapeutic, religious, spiritual, serious and nonsense whatever you want. You see people fetishise drug uses, really what we are talking about is people existing having facilitated whatever benefits they get. We should not be getting into any talk about legitmate uses and less legitmate uses as this is a hiding to nothing, either we are united or divided – the only exception is where people behave anti-socially whilst using drugs.

    My way of thinking IS to expose the lies, if we use these tools we can do that. We can use the public media to spread the truth as well as trying the courts. I agree the courts seem to be barrely independent of govt at times, but we should not give up on them doing what is entrusted for them to do – that is to construe the law and ensure compliance. If they did this they would soon see that government are misusing the misuse of drugs act.

    I am not buying into the consent issue at all, and there is nothing wrong with the statute at all, the LAST thing we want is a new law. We want this law administerring properly.

    I cannot join the LCA until we have common ground – I would already be compromising enormously by associating the DEA (my group drug equality alliance) with mere cannabis matters – we should actually be talking about all drug users, from alcohol to cannabis to crack – it’s all the same issue actually, people wanting to use drugs for various reasons. However I can live with this, I can even live with a med can campaign if certain principles were adopted. But I cannot tolerate people talking about legal and illegal drugs, and I cannot accept Peter to be the spokesperson for the world at large – it a monumental faux pas on his behalf to be so bloddy arrogant and then to have a tantrum about it rather than show some humility. If drugs can show people there true selves, if cannabis can help people reflect, then the state of personal development and self-awareness that keeps rising up is a massive swipe at such a notion. I don’t care how much publicity Peter generates, at teh end of the day the message has to be spot on, integrity has to be paramount. I think his idea of getting people involved sending letters is a good one, the only thing Peter needs to do in my book is apply the correct language, and tame his enthusiasm with a more measured and sober presentation.

    So to conclude (phew) Couldnt you see yourself as part of this newly enacted movement in the LCA but just keep plugging your personal preference? I see that your opinion carries weight and it would be important to have that along too. Lets face it ANY ammo the pro lobby comes up with no matter how many people disagree its all on the same page afterall?

    Darryl Bickler

    February 28, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    • Sorry last paragraph of that post above was left in by mistake from jimbob’s post.

      Darryl Bickler

      February 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm

      • ” If drugs can show people there true selves, if cannabis can help people reflect, then the state of personal development and self-awareness that keeps rising up is a massive swipe at such a notion.”

        Ah yes .., this enforces my personal theory that its a political crime to ingest cannabis. Cant have masses of people waking up to the fact the gov suck now can we lol.

        I might just add im not anti government, just pro GOOD government.


        February 28, 2011 at 4:04 pm

  15. Letter sent … let’s keep bombarding them.


    February 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm

  16. “I’m sorry but they didnt create a fantasy structure that can be undone in this way. The harm under the MODA is defined as ‘social harm’ – whilst it is of course a moot point whether you do cause any harm (and I would say not by growing your own cannabis), you cannot challenge the law in this way – it is enough for the govt to talk about protecting the country with these measures from the spread of cannabis use for example (and it doesnt matter if they are effective or not). If you can, prove it, go into a police station now with your stash and then try it, otherwise please do stop spreading dangerous misinformation.”

    LOL so you think its dangerous misinformation?? yes of course it is. I wrote magna carta as a con trick ffs.

    Whats more damaging though? our false legal system? or the fact that you have your own sovereign rights taken away from you?? . You disagree with it and call it dangerous misinformation?

    I think its your problem right there…, dont believe a word of what i say just go look it up for yourself instead of trying to debunk me?
    Im not going to spoon feed you it, nobody learns anything that way. Your stance makes sense you attitude however doesnt.

    Dangerous information it is.., misinformation IT IS NOT.


    February 28, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    • Darryl
      “If you can, prove it, go into a police station now with your stash and then try it, ”

      Of course the police may arrest you, they are a registered for profit corporation, look it up. They have to make arrests to meet their targets and get paid. They are nothing now but policy enforcers instead of peace officers. You ask a copper what would happen to his job if he stopped arresting people.


      February 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm

      • So, thats the point, you can teach them a lesson when the courts throw out the case because you never consented – simples! Or do you fear that it might not work.

        Actually although I have had my disagreements with peter, as soon as the freemen get onto the site I actually start to wish he would come back and clear you off his patch. There is no nice way to say all of this, why do you buy into this when all they have done is have a video of someone creating havoc in a magistrates court over a council tax claim, and all we know is that the court was adjourned because they didnt have any idea what was going on. For all we know the guy might have been sectioned under teh mental health act by now – nobody has ever stood before a criminal court charged with any proper offence or any drug matter and done this, so why do you insist on talking about it? It is the most absurd nonsense, and if Peter thinks my input is bad, then raising this stuff everywhere really is a perfect way to trash any sensible discussion. I would rather have Peter Reynolds is my Guru tatooed across my forehaed than have to listen to another mug who brought into this fantasy cult. By the way, the world famous Pinky tried this in court – Jesus wept, he was virtually imprisoned for contempt and the only thing that saved him was the judge thought he must be suffering from mental health problems by talking this way, that was before he was convicted.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 4:55 pm

      • I was going to write a response for you which explained.., however its clear to me that if it doesnt fit in your bubble you wont accept it. Narrow mindedness can be a disease aswell as a virtue.

        Pinky was a bad example as he was doing it half assed and probably had some fool advising him. Plenty of people have stated such cases and had dismissed, but you obviously wont look at that. Fantasy cult? THIS IS YOUR HISTORY YOUR FOOL. Then that’s just typical of people who are blinkered and refuse to challenge the status quo.

        Whatever Darryl.., its not surprising you get into so many heated debates.


        February 28, 2011 at 5:02 pm

      • I see, pinky just didnt go far enough then? Just how far do you want the poor fucker to go, into a straight jacket? OK, lets talk facts – please provide me with details of how this has been deployed in the criminal law jurisdiction with success.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm

      • No look it up for yourself, as you quite obviously wont believe a word of what i say.

        Educate yourself dont let others spoon feed you, there is LOTS of evidence out there, its not hard to find.


        February 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      • I wont believe any of TPUC – I qualified as a solicitor about 15 years ago, and in my view its rubbish. You have no evidence to back it up do you?

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      • LOl why continue to bait me? If you cant be bothered doing google then its obvious you wont look at the subject with an open mind, therefore a waste of my time and yours.


        February 28, 2011 at 5:16 pm

      • This is a public forum, you trashed it with TPUC and when I asked for evidence you told me to google it. Hmmm, what I dont get is why you are attached to it, its something you googled, why do you possess it so and want to protect it. It’s just some gobbledegook, its not yours, its not anything, its just a theory, why can’t you let go of it? If its so important tell people, this thread will exist forever, come on, forget the theory, where is the proof of the pudding?

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      • LOL who said i got my sources from TPUC? assumption much? How did i trash it? i didnt once mention the TPUC you brought that up.., way to go on transference man.

        I said google it because self learning is the most effective way. Im not protecting it i have my view, im telling you to go and educate yourself rather than hear it from me and take my word for it.., i cant be any fairer than that.

        gobbledegook? rofl

        Proof of the pudding everywhere, the fact that your not willing to look at it provides me with a wealth of info about you.

        Youd rather sit there in judgement of me than go find out for yourself. Great work there. Can you not see im trying to give you the key? its up to you to understand how to open the door, not for me to spoon feed it to you.


        February 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm

      • But nost Magistrates haven’t a clue what is going on. The same as many Councillors who are there for their own little ego trip !

        Why do you think so many cases get referred to Crown Court/County Court?

        Because most Magistrates know bug all about law, and just about capable of working out whether a parking ticket has been correctly issues or a woman has been beaten up and got a black eye. Of course whether it was self-inflicted or not is another matter !

        The Debt Collector

        February 28, 2011 at 8:39 pm

  17. God you really are one bitter mofo arnt you LOLZ!


    February 28, 2011 at 6:12 pm

  18. “To the best of my knowledge, I am the only elected representative of cannabis users in Britain. I regard it not only as quite proper but, in fact, as an obligation and responsibility that I should seek to represent the interests of all cannabis users.”

    Elected by how many exactly? A couple of dozen people? That’s hardly a “mandate from the masses” I feel.

    Mr Candlestickmaker

    February 28, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    • It’s the only mandate that anyone has so I’ll do my best with it thank you very much. If the only thing that drives you to comment here is in some way to run down or undermine my efforts then not only are you a rather sad individual but, frankly, you’re not welcome.

      Anyone with a genuine interest in ending the prohibition of cannabis would offer something positive. What exactly is your point?

      Peter Reynolds

      February 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm

      • I have a cunning plan – The Irish goverment has just radically changed & has a huge debt to pay off.

        Why dont the LCA canvass all the new Irish MP’s to legalise cannabis and point out how many millions of Euro’s the Dutch make in tax & tourism from a legalish cannabis market. Irish coffeeshops would bring jobs, tourists and much needed cash into the country – it would also serve as a model for the UK government for legalisation.

        Better still I wouldn’t have to drink a “small beer” but could have a pint of the brown stuff instead.

        Mr Bimble

        February 28, 2011 at 11:15 pm

      • That’s a splendid plan. I’d be over there as quick as anything if they did ease up in Ireland.


        March 1, 2011 at 9:03 am

  19. The words Gentlemen, Please and Time come to mind. . . .


    February 28, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    • Methadone, anyone?

      The Debt Collector

      February 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm

  20. Darryl Bickerer:

    Your attitude reminds me of the response I once say in a film when someone asked the question “Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?”

    You seem to be more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, (including with other anti-prohibitionists), than you are with driving the cause foreward.

    Whatever you may think of Peters ego, at least he is making a considerable effort, giving up a lot of his time, and working as part of a team with the other organisations and people trying to drive reform e.g. Transform, Professor Nutt, and, he is not, like you, having a tantrum because he is not the centre of everybodys attention.

    Yes he does talk like a leader, propably because he is the closest the movement has had to a leader in a long long time.

    You are not a leader, you never will be. You will be lucky if you ever manage to get a friend, nevermind followers. Just Grow up and stop throwing your toys out of your pram.

    Rant over !

    ( To everyone else, I’m sorry for feeding the Trol ! )

    Fight the good fight Peter.

    Cupid Stunt

    February 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    • Please note, this post also applies to the other posts under his other username.

      Cupid Stunt

      February 28, 2011 at 8:28 pm

  21. Well apologies if i offended anyone in the little tet a tet, i was making a point that was my own personal opinion, i wouldn’t push it on anyone.

    I just find darryls posts way off base. Although some of what he says has validity, its when someone disagrees with him things get irate it seems.

    Again apologies.


    February 28, 2011 at 9:09 pm

  22. What did the Romans ever do for us???

    Surley the argument should be “whats the best way to end prohibition” not who said/did what….

    Mr Bimble

    February 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    • The part I was referring to was how the PFJ thought the JPF were worse than the enemy, when if they had any sense they would join forces to acheive a common goal, and not the ‘what did they do for us?’ bit.

      Very much like Darryl-Candle’s attitude.

      Teamwork is the way foreward. All the individual groups need to work together and with each other. The in-fighting will acheive nothing except making everyone look stupid.

      Although … ‘a what has prohibition done’ for us campaign may be fun ….

      ‘so apart from the increased use, contaminated suppy, gun crime, knife crime, young children selling and buying drugs, gang warfare, people trafficing, cancer MS and leukemia patients victimised, what has drug prohibition ever done for us? ‘

      Cupid Stunt

      March 1, 2011 at 6:24 am

  23. Darryl has bickered his last here. I have been too patient with him too many times. The line is drawn.

    Peter Reynolds

    February 28, 2011 at 11:36 pm

  24. Much respect Peter. Just about to leave the UK after years and return to NZ. Will be supporting you all the way and wish to see an end to prohabition here and in NZ.

    Architect NZ

    March 1, 2011 at 10:48 am

  25. Well for a few years, Maybe until this economic situation gets better. I will be following you though from that side of the world and will be introducing many back home to your efforts as I feel you are doing the right thing. As I said before I stumbled across your blog via the your freedom website and have followed it since.

    In NZ we have the same situation. A government that lies, Police that bust your door for a couple of plants etc. Just recently our crime prevention minister said that under his rule there would never be medicinal cannabis for those in need. Funny thing is we are a nation of tokers and the government knows it.

    We have the Aoteroa Legalize Cannabis party, who are in government. We have Dakta green and Chris Fowley of Norml NZ. We can grow the bloody stuff outdoors as much of the coutry is dense bush and forest.


    March 1, 2011 at 11:45 am

  26. In other news. BBC running new psychosis story. Yawn….


    March 2, 2011 at 8:58 am

  27. Ive still not seen one word from the BBC on this interview. But they have coincidently published another cannabis bashing story

    Will they give you a right to reply to Peter?


    March 2, 2011 at 9:00 am

    • I have submitted the following comment, weather they will publish it or not is another matter…

      “If Cannabis really did cause psychosis then there would be an increase in the cases of this illness in relation to the vast increase in the use of Cannabis. This is clearly not the case as evidenced by the Keele Study: “Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005″
      An extract fom that study…

      “4.2. Links with trends in cannabis use

      In terms of the model set out in the Introduction, the expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and the incidence of psychotic disorders based on the 3 assumptions described in the Introduction. This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence (Macleod et al., 2006; Arsenault et al., 2004; Rey and Tennant, 2002).”

      Those three assumptions refered to are…

      “a) an elevated risk of developing schizophrenia/psychosis among cannabis users,
      b) a substantial rise in cannabis use in the UK from the mid-1970s onwards and
      c) an assumed elevated risk of 20 years,
      this model would predict a corresponding increase in schizophrenia/psychosis during our study period.”

      You will find that any data supposedly “proving” that Cannabis use leads to schizophrenia / psychosis are of the “cherry picked” variety.
      The prohibitionist lobby have been playing this card every few years since the 1920’s and even IF it were true this would be another strong reason that Cannabis possesion and supply should be legal and regulated so that quality and supply could be monitored and use by young children eliminated.. under legal regimes the minimum age for purchasing Cannabis is 18, under prohibition the minimum age is £10.”


      March 2, 2011 at 10:30 am

      • An elegant and concise response Dan. Thank you.

        Peter Reynolds

        March 2, 2011 at 11:19 am

      • Dan “If Cannabis really did cause psychosis then there would be an increase in the cases of this illness in relation to the vast increase in the use of Cannabis.”

        The government are working on this, rather than jailing cannabis users, they will be sending them to treatment, hence skewing the statistics of mental illness.


        March 2, 2011 at 12:55 pm

  28. Here are just some of the many studies the Feds wish they’d never commissioned:


    A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health
    . Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.


    Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997


    Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.


    The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

    05) PROHIBITION MAY CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p 836-842.


    Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.


    In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.


    Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.


    Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.


    In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” The report also added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006

    The American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, National Academy of HIV Medicine, two former U.S. surgeon generals, and hundreds of other medical professional groups all say that marijuana should be available to patients whose doctors recommend it.

    malcolm kyle

    March 2, 2011 at 9:59 am

  29. Pete can you contact me via email I’ve had an email re a comment I made on the beebs psychosis article earlier this morning. Ta


    March 2, 2011 at 11:36 am

    • I too have been contacted bt the Beeb. Could you e-mail me as well Peter, thanks.


      March 2, 2011 at 11:58 am

      • o0o really? please keep us updated, should be interesting if nothing else. I cant really see the BBC giving “impartial” evidence, but you never know.


        March 2, 2011 at 12:59 pm

      • I feel left out! I’ve commented and they’ve very rudely ignored me!!

        Keep us posted on any developments!

        The beeb have done a couple of interesting programs recently, so you never know!


        March 2, 2011 at 1:06 pm


    The BBC have published some comments…


    March 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm

  31. Iv’e put this up before its in support of Peter speaking for cannabis users, He can’t claim to speak for us if we don’t claim he speaks for us Please consider sharing, copying, pasting, adapting to reflect your own views and sending.

    Dear Mr Cameron,

    I am writing about your answer to the question about Cannabis during the recent Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview.

    Recently the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) elected a new leader Peter Reynolds. Who represent the interests of at least two million regular users of cannabis (Many of these are medical need users) and perhaps as many as 10 million occasional users in Britain? This is a huge proportion of the population and I understand Peter Reynolds; on their/our/my behalf has requesting a meeting with you and I am writing in support of this request.

    I in common with the millions of educated, well informed, intelligent taxpaying medicinal and chosen pleasure users of cannabis, were/are dismayed, shocked even, at your answer to the question in respect to cannabis legalisation. With respect, clearly it is you who are in ‘great need of’ education about cannabis. The information you gave was inaccurate and false. While we must all respect different opinions, your answer was factually wrong and I believe you must correct it. Cannabis is not “incredibly damaging”, nor “very, very toxic”. It is a myth that there is anything significantly different about the cannabis on sale today and the cannabis you and so many of your fellow MPs used in your youth; indeed a recent study has revealed that seized cannabis from the last decade does not differ significantly in strength from cannabis seized during the previous decade and the idea that it causes “in many cases, huge mental health problems” has been comprehensively disproved many times over by scientists all over the world. Here in Britain the Keele University report puts these claims into clear perspective and the LCA can provide you with scientific information which proves that these ideas are false.

    Recently the LCA have been pursuing various newspapers through the Press Complaints Commission for publishing the same inaccuracies. I am seriously alarmed when I see the prime minster of my country distributing such untruths.

    Two key facts:
    The Therapeutic Ratio of cannabis (ED50:LD50) is 1:40000 (Alcohol = 1:10, Paracetamol = 1:30).
    Even potatoes are more toxic than cannabis.

    Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol reviewed all published research on cannabis and Psychosis in 2009 and concluded that 96% of people have no risk whatsoever and in the remaining 4% the risk is “statistically tiny”.
    Your suggestion that legalising drugs increases use is also not supported by the evidence. In both Holland and Portugal where cannabis use is not prosecuted, consumption is much lower than in Britain.

    Finally, on medicinal use it is simply not true that the scientific and medical authorities are free to make independent determinations, the farce of Sativex (rebranded tincture) still not being made available due to scheduling medical truths/fact not fitting drug lies/propaganda clearly underlines that. The Home Office stamps on any medicinal cannabis use even when prescribed by a doctor. People from other European countries can bring medicinal cannabis to Britain and use it legally under the Schengen agreement but you can’t if you’re British. Here, sick and disabled people are being prosecuted every day for use of a medicine which is scientifically and medically proven; surely you cannot be unaware of this? It is a cruel and evil Policy which shames our nation by legitimising discrimination and promoting hatred; the war on drugs is a war on people and choice.

    So please, Mr Cameron, will you meet with my representative Peter Reynolds in order that he may show you the evidence and the facts about cannabis? Remember, this was the second most popular question you were asked on Friday and he represent the interests of millions of British citizens many of whom voted for your coalition partners based on manifesto promises. Please make time for him in your diary.

    I look forward to hearing from you or at the very least, hearing that our request for a meeting has been granted so as fairness and democracy based on truth can be established in our country which has for to long; abused its people due to laws based on fear, racism, bigotry and drug ignorance backed up with lies/mis-information.

    Yours sincerely,

    Philip Walsh

    March 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm

  32. […] Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter! […]

  33. The link containing the video of cameron is no longer working. Can someone send it me please

    jhora sangha

    January 9, 2014 at 1:52 am

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: