Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Cameron On Cannabis Part 3

with 51 comments

This is part three of the story but, in a way, it’s just the beginning.

The story is our prime minister, David Cameron, the leader of our country and his recent interview about cannabis. It was on Al Jazeera in association with YouTube and is one of a series of interviews with world leaders. You can watch the video and read the previous parts here:

Mr Cameron, It’s You Who Needs Education About Cannabis

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

So I wrote to Mr Cameron asking for a meeting about several factual inaccuracies in his answers.  I know that many of you wrote in support.

There are four crucial issues involved:

Mr Cameron said that cannabis is:

1.”incredibly damaging”

2. “very, very toxic”

3. “and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems”

And then, with regard to medicinal cannabis, he said:

4. “That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.”

Now these are all inaccurate and false statements. Mr Cameron is, at the very least, misinformed.  Clearly, there is an absolute obligation on him to correct these errors and to do so immediately.

When I hadn’t received a reply after about a week, on 9th March 2011 I wrote again:

Dear Mr Cameron,

I wrote to you just over a week ago (copy attached) asking for a meeting concerning your Al Jazeera YouTube interview about cannabis.

I represent a very substantial body of opinion in Britain which is deeply concerned at how inaccurate and misleading your words were.  I know that you will have received many letters supporting my request for a meeting with you.

I still have faith that you do want to take account of public opinion and promote a policy that is fact and evidence based as well as having the consent of the majority. Please will you now agree to see me?

Personally, I am very worried when I see my prime minister speaking such untruths about a subject that I know about.  It makes me wonder how accurate is your understanding of other issues.  I hope that our economic, defence and social policy is being run on the basis of knowledge, rather than the misunderstanding you seem to have about cannabis.

Please can we arrange a meeting?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

I had written to Mr Cameron on LCA letterhead showing the LCA headquarters address in Surrey. I was a little surprised then to receive a reply at my home address the following day!


Click To Enlarge

My response dated 16th March 2011:

Dear Mr Cameron,

Thank you for your reply dated 7th March 2011 which crossed with my letter of 9th March 2011.

With respect, this question is not for the Home Office.  It is you who made the inaccurate and misleading statements about cannabis during your YouTube interview.  Only you can correct the errors that you made.

In any event, I know what the Home Office will say. I could probably write their response myself so often have I seen the tired, formulaic replies they give to enquirers.  I know their phrases off by heart!

Last week during the debate in the House of Lords on a Royal Commission into drug policy, every speaker condemned government policy.  It was clear that Baroness Neville-Jones was embarrassed at having to defend what is an absurd and irrational policy that has little support in the country and has no basis in facts or evidence.

It is vital that the government steps back from its bigoted, wasteful and deeply damaging drugs policy.  You are wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, creating and supporting organised crime and causing immense harm to our society.  Specifically on cannabis, and in direct contradiction to the untruths you told on YouTube, you are denying hundreds of thousands of people access to the medicine they need.

Mr Cameron, we are respectable and responsible citizens who are being persecuted and oppressed by an iniquitous and irrational policy of prohibition.  It seems that you can only defend your policy by telling untruths.  That cannot be allowed to stand.

Please will you meet with me so that I can explain just how inaccurate your remarks on YouTube were?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Reynolds

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 17, 2011 at 8:59 pm

51 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When I wrote to Tony Blair about projectbrainsaver and all the mental health issues it could help with – I got exactly that letter back in reply – the date is different though – They live in worlds of their own except for the damage their views have on so many live – Peter Davy , Gary McKinnon, me


    March 17, 2011 at 9:05 pm

  2. I wrote to Nick Clegg recently about using the upcoming voting reform referendum to engage more young people in politics – and got a three page letter back explaining the new tuition fees system! It’s really frustrating trying to get through to these people 😦

    I do wonder when Cameron’s view on drugs policy changed – probably when he drunk the hard-right kool aid: shame really, I actually almost like Dave.

    Graham Hopgood

    March 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm

  3. Mind you… it was very good quality paper…..


    March 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm

  4. The Home Office will reply?! Never, well I’ll be.

    We should draft a template letter to them and say –

    “You’re not allowed to say the following…”

    The most depressive part of this whole expedition is the same old responses that have not changed in many an year.

  5. Go on Peter!!

    Candice Amson

    March 17, 2011 at 9:48 pm

  6. Well done peter, keep pushing mate. The truth is bound to come out, it always does.

    Just out of curiosity tho, is his interview on YouTube the REAL reason that Ken Clark tabled a motion to change liable laws last Tue? Maybe me just being cinical….

    Tell the truth Cameron


    March 17, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    • What motion are you referring to? Have a link to?

      Gart Valenc

      Gart Valenc

      March 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm

      • Hi gv.
        Sorry but can’t provide a link atm, I belive it was on BBC news last Tue tho. I read it on ttxt.

        Something to do with ‘stopping liable tourism’ whatever that’s ment to mean.

        Prob just my suspicious mind, just seems a bit of a coincidence that Clark motions amendments to current liable laws hot on the heals of Mr Cameron’s outright display of untruth on YouTube.

        See, I find it really difficult to belive the PM ‘made a mistake’ about wot he said in that interview simply because he voted in favour of decrim cannabis a few yrs ago.


        March 18, 2011 at 12:39 pm

      • Libel tourism is a sad consequence of our judges hearing any old shit in our courts.

        Google Simon singh, you’ll learn plenty.

        Clegg may be a dick but he is right in this one, and it shouldn’t hurt us to say so.


        March 19, 2011 at 4:47 am

  7. Please, please, please keep the pressure on Peter. I am absorbed by the ridiculousness of the laws regarding cannabis. I am not a criminal, i break the law by smoking weed, but by doing so am much more of a positive to the society (that i would love to be part of, but actually am not because of the clandestine life i have to lead) than many of those who drink and smoke and as a result cost per head a fortune in comparison. For a long time, years now, i have almost been looking to get caught in some way, as i am sure it would rattle the cage enough too get me to speak out publicly of the insane siuation we are all in. thhhhhhh????

    Please if you can read “The Emperor Wears No Clothes”
    By: Jack Herer (R.I.P)

    My eyes are like pies when i`m high, but wide open to the truth.



    March 18, 2011 at 1:17 am

  8. Keep trying Peter – remember it is getting the letters and replied read by the public and maybe even the press, that is more important than changing Cameron’s mind – he’ll be gone soon! The public and the press – and us – will still all be here. Cameron is about to commit an unknown number of murders in Libya for which he will be directly responsible, the hypocritical swine and blatant LIAR that he is.

    The unjust prohibition is basically a question of JUSTICE – neither benefit nor harm to the individual is the real issue: the Government is blatantly interfering with Human rights and it ought to be up to them to justify their laws and satisfy the requirements of their very own Human Rights laws and prove that prohibition (that is their interference in our Rights to a Private Life, to Property and to Belief) is justified – it must be in the interests of Public Health, Public Order, National Security or the protection of the Rights of others, which it is not. Please see and sign The Challenge at


    March 18, 2011 at 11:49 am

  9. Here is another page that may be of interest and which I hope you will all join and write in


    March 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

  10. @Peter,

    I’m wondering what would be the equivalent of “denial of service” tactic net activist use to put pressure on some service providers (remember Wikileaks?) My point is that there must be a way of forcing politicians, and more generally, people on public offices to be answerable to their constituency, i.e. us, for their opinions and policies regarding Prohibition and the War on Drugs. A starting point is keep sending letters and email in large numbers (enough to “saturate” their communication centers) but what else can be done? Alun’s initiative seems promising as long as it can reach the critical mass at which politicians will have no other option but to pay attention.

    We saw and heard the recent debate on the House of Lords. The call for a Royal Commission fell on deaf ears—government’s ears that is. Do we, citizens, have at our disposal a mechanism to force Parliament, for instance, to designate an independent body which will have the mandate to assess the current drug policy (in line with an Impact Assessment, say)and to make their recommendations legally binding?

    Gart Valenc

    March 18, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  11. Yes we need to keep this pressure on the people who are meant to respresent us. I have just moved from the UK to NZ and see that the NZ government is quiet similar to the UK government with regards to drug policy. As a kiwi I strongly support reform in this area but see that our governemt bases much of its stance on what is happenig in the UK, so Peter I belive that the work you are doing will reach far and wide in my view. I for sure will be voting the Aoteroa Legalize Cannabis Party this time around.

    Just to let you hguys know that our governemnt have even banned the cannabis seed and wonder why the Mongrel Mob, Black Power and Hells Angels have so much control and power now. Its prohabition and its destroying this world.


    March 18, 2011 at 2:09 pm

  12. Its all deeply disturbing. The worlds in a pile of shit. Looking through a prism, there is no good side.

    Power to you dude(Peter)I admire your bravery and commitment to the truth. I wish that our government delivered upon these same values. I believe and hope that these are the aspirations of their hearts but, fear is too ingrained within politics and I believe that this alone is the only real barrier to immediate change.


    March 18, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    • That’s deep man. Peace. (extremely high, great weed although I sort of have a feeling you don’t toke)


      March 18, 2011 at 11:13 pm

  13. Back in January 2011 I read the following article:

    I’m not a lawyer nor expert in constitutional or parliamentary issues. So, I put the following questions to those of you with relevant knowledge or experience:

    1.Does such a mechanism, or something similar, exist in our legislation?

    2.Would a Private Member’s Bill do?

    Gart Valenc

    Gart Valenc

    March 18, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    • V Interesting.
      It IS a democracy after all, there should be the mechanic for it somewhere you’d think?


      March 18, 2011 at 9:19 pm

  14. well done, peter. i’m part of that substantial body of opinion you are representing. get this one through and i will campaign for a reynolds strain of the herb. best wishes, craig.

    craig ashby

    March 19, 2011 at 3:35 pm

  15. Its myths like the ones Mr Cameron is perpetuating that have created this –

    10 years! 10! YEARS For something that’s relatively harmless!

    That’s bloody harsh, but then I saw this even harsher sentence in the US

    For cannabis! its insane! You’d think it was lethal! And it obviously isn’t!


    March 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    • With regard to the British guy;
      If he was just a toker I would agree but, he is one of the criminal types that are the cause of the all the problems and undoubtedly turns his hand to a variety of other petty crimes. It is precisely this element that Peter, and most of us i’d hope, want removed from the supply chain. So, sorry dude, I have to disagree on this occasion but, do know what your getting at.
      I think, pretty much all of us would be far happier, not having any contact with any criminal elements. We would love to grow our own,like a man/women can ferment wine or, stand in a licensed shop and choose that nights variety to enjoy. Just, as any man/women could if brandy was his drink, and he was standing in the off licence around the corner.
      Thats why I visit here.
      Screw the criminals, they screw pretty much everyone of us here and would happily turn everyone of us to make a quick buck.
      This is about freedom of choice. I know some of you may disagree but its all about liberty and what is right. There are people suffering from debilitation all over the country that are being supplied their medicines by criminals.. Thats not right. There are children in schools all over the country being sold cannabis by criminal smugglers just like the individual in that article.Thats not right..We don’t need a discussion…We all know the truth.
      Smugglers are criminals not hero’s. I admit, when I see a hoard discovered, I do think, ummmmm, I’d like a toke on that but, the smugglers and commercial grower are hardened individuals. Criminals, not REALLY our friends.. Don’t be fooled guys.


      March 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      • Sorry, this was in response to bobs entry.

        BTW…Peace Bob, we just see that one a bit differently.


        March 20, 2011 at 7:45 pm

      • It signals that cannabis is a lot more dangerous than it is, maybe even toxic and incredibly dangerous!! I mean 10 YEARS for cannabis! I don’t see smuggling / importing cannabis as a particularly dangerous or harmful offence, who are we protecting putting this man in prison for 10 years? If it’s not protecting the public it’s surely to send a message! 10 years!
        I’m not sure blaming the current suppliers for the market (of cannabis especially) is fair or right either, especially if you’re a consumer, the price is controlled by the home office.
        I think condoning a frankly absurd prison sentence because he is a ‘criminal type’ is dangerous territory. Unless you know something I don’t, the man in the article is only a ‘criminal type’ because cannabis is illegal!! You’ve assumed he is involved in other crimes because he has been convicted for a drug offence. He has imported cannabis!! He hasn’t been sentenced for any other ‘petty’ crimes; he is a 55 year old taxi driver! I don’t know the gentleman, he may have been a criminal is other ways I can’t assume either way but he was sentenced to 10 years for conspiracy to supply class B drugs.
        The current suppliers ARE NOT the problem, they are filling a huge gap created by prohibition and demand, making a massive profit from prohibition (no tax, no regulation costs), I think you’ve fallen into a classic prohibitionist myth – it’s a crime therefore everyone associated with it is a serious gangland criminal of somekind involved in terrorism!!!
        Currently ALL cannabis smokers are seen as ‘criminal types’, ALL growers of cannabis, medicinal or not, are seen as serious ‘criminal types’
        Cannabis isn’t really that harmful! Why am I as a taxpayer paying for a 10 year prison sentence for a relatively harmless offence? Why are we creating a 10 year prison risk to rationalise the high price high risk market? Why are we paying for anyone to be punished for pot?
        What would he have got had he been smuggling the same value in booze or fags? (and that would be for robbing the public purse not the harm value!) The lethal drug alcohol is readily available and the shop keepers caught selling it to under 18s wouldn’t get a sentence anywhere near 10 YEARS! Cannabis however ‘harmful’ to young people it is, is certainly far less harmful than Alcohol. How many young people are admitted to hospital because of cannabis? Compared to booze? And booze is apparently ‘regulated’, how many shop keepers go to prison for supplying our school goers with a genuinely toxic substance like alcohol?
        Ideally we’d all be able to grow our own, but in reality we’d be looking at worryingly long prison sentences and portrayed as serious criminals. Is Rick Simpson a criminal type? Medicinal cannabis should certainly be available legally and from a regulated supply, but it isn’t, because of the home office.
        I think agree that we don’t want to associate with criminal types and we certainly don’t want to be criminal types, That’s certainly NOT RIGHT. But in reality cannabis growers / dealers shouldn’t be criminal types in the first place! If you think that people should grow their own I can’t fathom why you think 10 years is a rational justifiable sentence for importing a bit of cannabis!
        The current silly drug laws have created a very very profitable drug market and none of us want that! Buts its no wonder people want to take advantage of the huge profits available, (the big pharmaceuticals do it legally. Long prison sentences for cannabis supply can only increase the price and risk for all concerned!!!
        Fully decriminalising cannabis would instantly wipe out the huge ‘criminal’ profit, and remove the risks involved in the current market. But it would also lead to loss of 10000s jobs in the criminal justice system, if not more. Prohibition just creates criminals for the system to process, a real drug policy would be health and education based, informing people of the risks involved and reducing harms.

        And thankfully we are still allowed to debate these things – I think it’s healthy! Most certainly PEACE! Sorry for the long post!


        March 21, 2011 at 1:00 am

      • Bob, I am with you in spirit but not on this one. How does a taxi driver get his hands on enough cash to obtain £1.3 million in weed.. Thats a lot of trips in a taxi.
        What I’m trying to express is that you, me and every other toker smoke, we don’t then acquire a tonne of it to make a huge profit. He is a profiteer taking advantage of the law. He is not Howard Hughes he is more than likely a modern criminal. Even Howard draws this comparison to a bunch of Hippies thinking this stuff is great, everyone should have access to it compared to modern criminals who share no hippy mentality unlike, you me and every other toker.

        As part of our campaign for freedom we need total disassociation from criminal types. If we chant hero or whatever we are seen to support organised crime and as such be no better. I’m not talking about some guy you get a quarter off who probably really is your mate I’m talking about the guys further up chain. Don’t be fooled into thinking they are ‘alright’. They want your money and nothing else. Its not to do with ideological freedom of thought and expression its to do with cash. Thats all they are interested in. I am 100% pro legalisation. All ways have been, always will. Trust me dude, I do know the score.


        March 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm

      • I think we are sort of singing from the same hymn sheet. I’m certainly not suggesting for a moment he is a hero, I’m simply saying his sentence for importing cannabis is ridiculous and completely disproportionate to the harm!

        I think you’re forgetting us ‘tokers’ are considered ‘criminal types’ and home growers are considered ‘serious criminals’. Although I understand the distinction your attempting to make between ‘serious’ criminals and mates selling quarters, I don’t think cannabis supply should be a crime no matter where you are on the supply chain! Stereotyping those involved with it, is in my opinion wrong!

        10 years for cannabis supply is frankly obscene and a complete waste of taxpayers money, if this man is a ‘criminal type’ convict him of something that should be a crime! Cannabis supply of any kind SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME!!!!! Its bloody harmless in comparison to booze!

        A 10 year sentence sends a false message that cannabis is far more dangerous than it is, and we cannot allow it! This is a message sentence and doesn’t reflect the value of the crime!

        I don’t blame people from profiteering from bad laws, its a known expected consequence of prohibition. Its the fault of law that there is so much profit available. Good and bad people will still make money from cannabis even its legalised, the profit margins will just be reduced! Criminal gangs follow money (see booze prohibition), once the money falls out the market so will the gangs. The current supply chain only exists because of prohibition!

        I suppose the point I’m making badly, is that Cannabis shouldn’t be crime! My point isn’t about the Man its about the punishment fitting the crime!

        I don’t expect them to care for there consumers either! Do you think Weatherspoons care about alcohol related deaths when looking at the profit sheet?

        I must also point out the pot in the case was massively and deliberately over valued! its bulk value was more 400k. Its cost price would have been substantially lower! Although I certainly don’t think even at a million pounds it justifies TEN years!!!!

        Its yet another symptom of prohibition – over inflated prices (especially for the courts!) I mean costing the cannabis based on it being sold in £10 lots is just bloody stupid!

        Lets all hope the lords force the issue through, to at least an open debate and we can look forward to no longer being criminals or associating with them!


        March 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      • Your missing my point Bob. Importing substantial quantities of any drug, from fags to smack is a crime and is wrong. Too often do I see peoples love of weed overcome their usual discrimination between good people and bad. Its the weed you love and not the supply chain. During my time, I have known and encountered criminals involved in supply. They are to a man scum who, without any emotional response would slit your throat if they thought your wallet was full.
        Whilst i accept your point on the police over egging the value and am pro weed as a substance of enlightenment I am not fooled that dealers are ‘cool’, urban hero’s or helping people by getting them what they want. They are not any of these things. They are not chilled, they do not think of the implications of their actions, they are simply feeding their own greed. Bob, you are clearly very intelligent and I promise that it is in no way my intention to undermine you or patronise you at all. In my opinion any criminal smuggling any substance legal or otherwise to make profits in the 100s of 1000s should be removed from society. Imagine if you inadvertently damaged this guys business? Do you think he’d be all chilled and be a good understanding guy about? No, he’d kill you or make your life a living hell. The big players are dangerous people. The reason he was given ten years was not about the weed, it was the temerity of his actions. Don’t fight for people who would just as soon piss on you as set you on fire. Fight for the cause and F–k the criminals. All the talk of adulteration with silica and various other poisons …who do you think puts it there?


        March 21, 2011 at 6:02 pm

      • I’m not portraying this cabbie as some kind of saint! I’m certainly not fooled that he is some ‘cool’ urban hero, here to provide cannabis for peace and love. I really don’t know what gave you that impression!! I don’t know him from Adam and he was clearly in it for the money!! It’s the severity of the punishment I’m complaining about.

        I’m not going to stereotype him as an evil criminal mastermind or potential murderer just because drugs are involved or because he was greedy – that’s exactly what the prohibitionists want. Drugs are evil, drugs are bad! It’s exactly the message given out by a 10 year prison sentence! He must deserve it! He is someone taking advantage of the profits created by prohibition! but at least its cannabis and not crack! And it certainly doesn’t warrant a ten year prison term! There are far more cost effective solutions to removing this profiteering from cannabis from society.

        The penalties had this been 450k of tobacco would have been 2 year max (and that’s more for tax evasion than public protection) I don’t see the value for money I’m getting from paying for any part of his 10 years in prison. A fine for evading cannabis duty would be far more appropriate in my humble opinion!

        I do understand there are some bad people involved with the supply of cannabis, but I don’t think Cannabis should be used as an excuse to put them in prison. If they are bad people, they should be convicted for doing something bad! Not for Cannabis
        The bad people you’ve described are seemingly violent thieves and should be heavily punished for their violence, you describe someone prepared to slit throats without remorse, I’d suggest these kind of people would be involved in enough other crime to warrant long term incarceration! Its unfortunate your experiences of people have been so soured by so many bad ones. I’m not clear why you’ve put this man into this category! It seems to be a sweeping generalisation. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but It’s also a bit of a contradictory position – cannabis should be legalised, but people should serve LONG sentence for supplying it???? You can’t have it both ways!

        The only reason its criminal smuggling in this case is because its cannabis! There is no other way to import it! I’d love to import some fine top quality hash from Holland and I’d happily pay a cannabis tax to do so! but the law says I can’t and that I would be a criminal type for doing so.

        10 years is bloody harsh for something as non toxic as cannabis. Remember he was found guilty of conspiracy to supply class B drugs, do you think cannabis should be a class B drug? Would his sentence be 10 years if cannabis was legally available? What would you suggest the tariff should be for cannabis supply?

        The adulteration of cannabis is again a direct result of prohibition, if cannabis was legal there would be no cost benefit to adding silica (although there was a rumour that was the French polices efforts to make cannabis dangerous) , adulterating a substance is also a very different offence to smuggling!
        I don’t stand up for or for fight for ‘criminals’ who harm society, (remember tokers / consumers are criminals) but 10 years for smuggling something so comparatively harmless is very very harsh no question. That’s not naïve or furry eyed either, the punishment should fit the crime!

        We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether 10 long years is a suitable sentence for a non violent offence…


        March 22, 2011 at 10:52 am

      • I hear what your saying Bob. My stand is nothing to do with cannabis really and more to do with scale. Big profit = big risk = big penalty for getting caught. I’m sure that the crown prosecution are not interest if its crack or weed. Its about the scale and the sentence is proportionate to the risk. I would suggest that the guy knew the risk and made a gamble that didn’t pay off. His choice, his loss. I should image he chose weed because it moves so fast and his % is vast. Thats what I’m trying to get at.

        With regard to the prosecution, they will take whatever route that gets the result. Denis Noy is a great example..Career criminal with very violent tendency. He was involved in the brinx mat robbery and even managed to get off when he ‘accidentally’ stabbed a police officer in his garden. They couldn’t get him til he Road Rage stabbed some poor guy then, absolutely threw the book at him.

        I would totally agree with you if it was some guy with a couple of oz…Totally different. This guy however, knew the risk, made a gamble and lost.

        Please don’t think I’m having a go Bob, I’m not at all I’m just discussing and also the younger amongst us must understand that the supply chain isn’t glamorous or cool. If you smoke, fine, power to you if it agrees with you however, don’t make the mistake and start pretending to play gangster because real gangsters eat the children amongst us. And to some degree those who smoke are a little more susceptible as it softens our outlook and makes us see the best in people. My poor suffering Mrs believe of me that if someone threw a brick at me I’d still say ‘but really he’s a nice guy’

        Please, please, please Bob, don’t think I’m having a go at you. It’s not what I’m about. I simply disagree on this guy but, am with you regarding your general out look on the subject.

        BTW your absolutely right that to assume taxi dude is violent is wrong but, the bigger the bandit more often than not, the badder.


        March 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      • Sorry Bob, I missed one of your questions ‘ Should cannabis be class B’…
        No, it should be legal, no classification, no prohibitionist, moralised, crusading, bullshit. In my heart I see prohibition as the evil amongst us. I think with out it I’d be an absolute fruit cake! This is not to say i recommend its use as, i do not because it does not agree with every one, much like gin! However, for me it has changed my life these past twenty odd years. I was born a worrier and a little on the nervous side and this has given me a balance that otherwise I would be without. I function well, I hold down a good job and career. It hasn’t demotivated me as it does with some.. Again, this is not a recommendation, just part of my story.


        March 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm

      • We certainly agree on the legal status of cannabis!

        I don’t think anyone should serve any prison sentence (especially at my expense) in relation to a cannabis offence of any kind, punishment for pot should stop immediately. Its an outrageous waste of all of our money and we can’t afford it (even if its to imprison those who we can’t convict of anything else!) It should be decriminalised at the very minimum. New schools or cannabis prohibition? Hmmm let me think…

        Prohibition just creates wealth for the criminals and 10,000s jobs in the criminal justice system, I’m honestly starting to believe its part of the reason its being kept a criminal offence, just to these people in work!! I mean what would the police do with the officers currently conducting the 2/3 raids a day on cannabis ‘farms’ – the police are hardly likely to damage their job prospects are they! And what the criminals turn too? real crime? like theft? How would the gangs be financially viable without it? If cannabis was legal, I’d guess half the weekend violence caused by booze would disappear!! I mean who can fight stoned?

        I think the way to most people’s (non smokers especially) is the money involved, we need an accurate figure on the cost of cannabis law enforcement and the benefits we are supposed to derive from its illegality, just what is the cost benefit of cannabis prohibition? for every £ we spend what do we get as taxpayers? If I could my hands on the data I’d work it myself!

        I think the costs run in to billions and I don’t think the public derive any benefit at all…

        Cannabis helps me to sleep, and without it I’d have to use something like the horrid Zopiclone (metal mouth!) or as my doctor once suggested I could drink alcohol to help me sleep!! It also helps me to relax and I suspect my blood pressure would be much higher without it! Its not a recommendation by any means, but given a choice between cannabis and booze it’s a no brainer!


        March 28, 2011 at 4:11 pm

      • Sorry Bob, I missed your question’ should it be class B’ No, it should be legal. The biggest evil and doer of harm is prohibition.


        March 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    • Thanks for posting this positive piece of news. I get so depressed reading about the pointless criminalisation of people, its nice to read something that reinforces my thoughts about UK drug laws


      March 21, 2011 at 10:15 am

      • the really good news is that this story was heard on the other side of the atlantic – our friends in LEAP published it on their blog too.


        March 21, 2011 at 1:38 pm

  16. Keep up the pressure Peter, you have got your teeth into Cameron now and I know you wont let go until the day you are sitting face to face with him! Cameron and the Govt are now telling blatant lies about cannabis and its effects, he is totally out of sync with current research and the experiences of other countries. He MUST be made to correct those statements. Every day of the week otherwise honest, law abiding people are being criminalised as a result of the propaganda, lies and misinformation peddled by his Government, and you know what? ….. I’m sure that Cameron knows it!

    Lee Gramson

    March 21, 2011 at 11:00 am

    • Cameron gets away with it because currently the only people who get offended by what he said are people like us.

      Whtehr we like it or not there are just too few of us at the moment. The only way to change that is to keep talking to our friends and relatives, and convince them of the need for change.

      The more people we get to join us, the harder it will be for Cameron to repeat his untruths, and the easier it will be for the Peter lilleys and Bob Ainsworths to speak the truth.


      March 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm

  17. I sent my letter to DC on the 10 March 2011. I know it arrived as I sent it recorded with full tracking. I sent a further letter, as I had promised in the first letter to send some details when I received them, on the 15 March. To date I have received nothing at all from DC’s office.

    My MP on the other hand has written and emailed me on more than one occasion in response to the letter I sent him on the 9 March.

    What does everyone suggest I do now re the deafening silence from DC?


    March 25, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    • keep on sending him the letters he can ignore you only for so long

      a quiet man

      March 28, 2011 at 2:49 am

    • I should ask your MP to ask DC why he hasn’t replied.

      Peter Reynolds

      March 28, 2011 at 10:28 am

      • I’m going to send DC one more letter today, again Royal Mail fully track & trace – lets call it a gentle reminder.

        I may mention in it that I have a meeting at the House of Lords next week and I would really like to be able to say I had heard something from him by then. . . . .


        March 28, 2011 at 10:56 am

      • I can’t do that it would spoil the surprise.


        March 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm

  18. why not find as many M,Ps that will support this cause the way I see it ignorance breeds contempt and thats what cannabis users face from the Government the most important thing is to get the debate on the cost of the failed war on drugs started.
    a public letter signed by as many public figures as poss in a few daily papers can do the trick, demanding a major review conducted right away into the cost and harm the present failed system is doing and for the issue of all drugs to be dealt with as a medical issue and not criminal.
    keep it simple as few words as poss so the ignorant can be given a chance to understand and then keep hammering the message into the media.
    as for those clowns in downing street they wont move till the Americans have ended their drug war so thats why they wont answer honestly .
    money is always at the heart of it so make the total cost known to people then sit back roll one up and watch the sparks

    a quiet man

    March 28, 2011 at 2:46 am

  19. I think you need to change your name to Peter Reynolds PLC, then he may take notice as it seems David Cameron only has time for corporats (and that was a deliberate spelling mistake :-))

    We need to create The Peoples Voice Corporation, we only need 1000 members willing to pay £100 each for an advertising fund with which we could definitely broadcast our message on billboards in Westminster or even a tv & radio Campaign . I know that it costs approx 5k to broadcast a radio campaign for 4 weeks 7 times a day 30 seconds each time and its amazing how many people that can attract, I know I have promoted my business this way and was pleasantly surprised by it’s effectiveness.

    David Cameron will not meet because he must know by now if not already that his attack on cannabis was factually, morally wrong and an embarrassment to his PR controlled image resulting in him looking like an uneducated buffoon, what a travesty that such a shockingly expensive education system still produces pig ignorant pupils.


    March 28, 2011 at 8:13 am

    • Changing my name. . . . now why didn’t I think of that. Simples!


      March 28, 2011 at 8:34 am

      • name change well its not a bad idea after all when they called it new labour Thatcher got her man into number 10 back in 97
        and the present govt started selling cannabis by calling it sativex
        so yes that can work

        a quiet man

        March 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

  20. I asked the Home Office if they gave the PM the information about cannabis for this interview (albeit more in hope than expectation), and their response although unclear seems to suggest they didn’t. I’ve asked them clarify what advice if any they have given to him about the dangers of cannabis for such questions. (I don’t expect much of a response).

    Interesting that the PM points Peter in the direction of the home office to answer his cannabis queries, but he doesn’t seemingly get advice from there!

    Just where does he gets the idea cannabis is very, very toxic? Surely he wouldn’t just make it up! And surely he would have some idea about the questions before he went ‘live’ with that interview.


    March 28, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    • Thank you for this Bob. Great information which I shall use in my next letter to DC.

      Peter Reynolds

      March 29, 2011 at 8:09 am

  21. It’s interesting to read these articles on UK Prime Minister David Cameron. I came across some news articles and blogs from 2007, wherein his attitude about cannabis, for medicinal purposes at least, was quite different. In 2007, David Cameron seemed much more willing to advocate the decriminalization of cannabis for medicinal use. Now, it is not very clear if he still feels the same way. Some countries in which medical cannabis remains illegal are: Thailand, Hong Kong, Turkey and Sweden. If you look at the history of marijuana in Thailand, for example, the plant was traditionally used for its healing attributes, but remains illegal today. Criminalization of cannabis remains in place in many countries in the world, but decriminalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes seems to be a growing trend. To Peter and other readers, what is your take on why Cameron has now become vague on his position since 2007?


    July 30, 2011 at 9:01 am

    • I do have an answer for you. I’m not sure it’s right, obviously, but it is the product of a great deal of consideration and I do have an in depth knowledge of the subject..

      It’s corruption. I’m not suggesting that Cameron is taking brown paper envelopes. It’s more subtle than that.. He is under pressure from the mammoth alcohol and Big Pharma lobbies but perhaps most of all from the dead hand of the civil service (some of whom I believe are in receipt of brown envelopes). High ranking civil servants are a negative, destructive and malevolent force in Britain that holds back the reforming and progressive instinct of all politicians.

      Cameron is also a coward.

      Peter Reynolds

      July 30, 2011 at 10:14 am

      • I have had exactly the similar thought.

        I wonder if it would be possible to make a DVD/YouTube programme after the theme of the Anthony Jay’s ‘Yes, Minister’, and Yes, PrimeMinister” taking the piss out of the shenanigans going on in the Home Office? It is surprising how well the truth can be told and exposed when shielded by jest.

        You need a whistle-blower because it is obvious that there is a very powerful ‘Sir Humphrey’, pulling the strings somewhere in the system. (S)He may or may not be in receipt of manilla envelopes, but for some reason or other (s)he is quite obviously controlling our elected representatives.

        The other idea I have is to set up a ‘Cannabis Clinic’ in a ‘Free-World’ country and supply it with patients from the U.K. and possibly France. Patients could go there for a sixty day intensive course of cannabis to be cured of, for example, adenocarcenoma cancers.

        Make up your own mind about Dennis Hill’s sincerity. For me it’s glaringly obvious.

        You’d have to find a generous patron, and goodness only knows where such a person would come from. An obvious location for the clinic is in the beautiful Rif Mountains in Morocco, but I do not know what the Moroccan government would think of the idea. Ditto for Lebanon.


        October 7, 2011 at 12:13 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: