Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

The Future Of Cannabis In Britain Is CLEAR

with 74 comments

Last Thursday, 24th March 2011, the latest ballot of the membership of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance closed.  By a two-thirds to one-third majority the members voted to adopt a new constitution and to change the party’s name.  From that moment on we are known as Cannabis Law Reform or CLEAR.

We have moved away from the use of the word “legalise” because it is interpreted as meaning a free for all.  It scares people, particularly politicians and the media and we, as a party, now understand that these are the people we need to influence if we are to advance our cause.

We have also refined and sharpened our aims and objectives.  They are now simple, direct and clear:

  1. To end the prohibition of cannabis.
  2. To promote as a matter of urgency and compassion the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors.
  3. To introduce a system of regulation for the production and supply of cannabis based on facts and evidence.
  4. To encourage the production and use of industrial hemp.
  5. To educate and inform about the uses and benefits of cannabis.

Medicinal cannabis is our spearhead.  We seek an end to prohibition for everyone but we demand immediate provision for those who need cannabis as medicine.  It is an obscene and evil shame on our nation that so many who suffer are in fear of arrest and prison for using a medicine that transforms their lives.

We will build a new and effective brand and campaign.  We are reasonable, responsible, respectable members of society from all walks of life and professions.  We are discriminated against by an irrational and absurd policy.  Cannabis is a wonderful thing.  It is relatively harmless but it is a psychoactive substance and needs to be respected. It’s medicinal value is unparalleled but it also offers wonderful recreational, spiritual and creative nourishment.  The relatively young science of cannabinoids now explains why cannabis has been treasured and used by mankind since the dawn of time.  Prohibition is a ridiculous policy. The truth about cannabis is clear.

We intend to build a substantial membership. Annual subscriptions have been cut to £5.00 and for concessions £1.00.  We ask everyone to make a payment of £10 towards campaign funding but money will not be an obstacle to anyone joining.  Please show your support for our campaign and join CLEAR.  Within the next few days we will launch a membership drive with the simplest way to sign up being payment by text message.

We will be fielding candidates in council and parliamentary elections all over the UK.  We do not expect to win many seats but we intend our campaign to be given the respect and attention it deserves.  We will seek electoral pacts with other parties who are prepared to sign up to our aims.  If you would like to stand as a candidate,  please get in touch.  We also need voluntary workers all over the country.

We have exciting campaigns on the way that communicate the scientific truth about cannabis and demolish the scare stories and prejudice that is so widespread.  We will never let another ridiculous tabloid story pass without challenging it.  We will not allow our political leaders to get away with untruths and propaganda without calling them to account.

We will campaign for an end to the ludicrous waste of law enforcement resources on cannabis and for a regulated system of production that will exclude organised crime and the evils of violence and human trafficking that prohibition causes.  We will educate users about cannabinoid content, different strains, varieties and methods of use. We will promote regulation to ensure quality, safety and restriction of sales to adults only.

We already have solid data that proves a tax and regulate regime in Britain would produce a net gain to the economy of at least £6 billion per annum, freeing up police to concentrate on real crime and massively reducing the harms caused by prohibition.

Despite the fact that most people in Britain have used cannabis to no ill effect and that between two and ten million people have it as a regular part of their lives, the cannabis campaign has failed to make any real progress.   Now is when that changes.  The future of cannabis in Britain is CLEAR.

We will release more details about our campaign in the near future.

The truth about cannabis is CLEAR.

74 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well done to the new and excitingly named CLEAR!

    One question though in regards to Number 1. Should it not read, “To end the prohibition of cannabis use”? I know it’s only a small detail but I have to ask(Sorry Peter for being an annoying shit.) All the best in your future campaigns. Nik

    Nik Morris

    March 28, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    • I agree with this feedback in sentiment with another small detail, cannabis use is not an actual crime either although it is fair to say that users are generally criminalised through possession and supply offences. Nik is right to make the point though as for too long people have been talking about drugs in an entirely abstract way (legalise drugs, illicit drugs, war on drugs etc) – take the opportunity to build into the language the person, ie the user whenever possible.

      Darryl Bickler

      March 29, 2011 at 6:59 am

  2. great stuff Peter makes sense each and every word

    lets hope some of the big wigs are listening ,

    good karma to CLEAR

    teddys head

    March 28, 2011 at 9:43 pm

  3. Spot on Peter. On point 2 I would say ‘Promote’ is a controversial word. No one drug should be ‘Promoted’, We’ve had quit enough of that from big pharma. I prefer more neutral terminology such as ‘Be presented as a viable option for treatment of the symptoms of a variety of debilitating conditions.Such as ….(case studies) ‘.
    Just my opinion Peter, for what its worth.
    Frightening word ‘promote’. People do not learn or see clearly if frightened.


    March 28, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    • What about “Encourage”?

      Nik Morris

      March 28, 2011 at 9:55 pm

      • A positive word for sure but, current thinking as, prescribed by government policy, has cannabis as an immoral and harmful ‘drug’. The main requirement is education not encouragement. This will be better received. No one should be left to do anything other than to make up their own mind. The only influence should be the facts. Case Studies of people like everyone out there who are able to gain a significant improvement to life quality. This is what is really important as I see it. But…..what do I know ?


        March 28, 2011 at 10:07 pm

  4. this is something I can support as a user of cannabis for over 20 years the most frustrating thing for me has always been the ignorance that is pushed onto people by the media about this drug.
    when people know how much tax payers money is waisted every time the police begin the process of prosecution on a person they find with cannabis the cost of court the cost of all the expert reports that need to be made the cost of jobs lost due to convictions the cost of prison time and the biggest cost the cost in lives. simple fact we will have to pay more in tax without any hope of either reducing the supply or demand all this money and then the government tells us we cannot afford to spend any more in education or health.
    could you find those kind of costs ? cause even the ignorant wise up when it comes to their wallet
    show the home office are not fit to deal with the drug issue and get it moved to the health dept where it should be .
    just getting the debate started will be the victory the system will then adapt naturally

    a quiet man

    March 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    • I beleive that is taken into account with the £6 billion figure stated above.

      Rhys Morgan

      March 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm

  5. I’m with ‘a quiet man’ on one of those, I think it would be great if we could find out just how much is spent on the prohibition of cannabis in terms of

    a) overall cost to police
    b) police hours
    c) number of police used to police cannabis prohibition – raids, random stops etc.
    d) court costs to the taxpayer
    e) court hours taken up processing users

    Would be a nice start to showing how much this costs us all.


    March 28, 2011 at 10:46 pm

  6. Absolutely brilliant stuff Peter, well done what you and others have achieved in what is relatively a short space of time is nothing more than uplifting, there are people that do and people that don’t.. have every faith in CLEAR and think it will appeal to every right thinking section of society, I am wondering how many if any ex Police Commissioners and Officers CLEAR may attract, feathers in caps and all that.

    Am over the moon with this news.

    L Catt

    March 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm

    • Thank you Lucky. That means a lot.

      Peter Reynolds

      March 28, 2011 at 11:19 pm

  7. Brilliant Peter, How can I get more involved? Will repost this on ISMOKEHERB


    Nuff Said

    March 28, 2011 at 11:11 pm

  8. Great Work Peter


    March 29, 2011 at 12:11 am

  9. Yup, good decision, good name. I hope that CLEAR can co-operate with the Green Party and that the parties don’t stand against each other.

    John Cossham

    March 29, 2011 at 12:20 am

    • John, shoukld the Green Party not make the first move and start implementing their existing policies?
      Worrying about competition is not enough anymore.

      I hope that CLEAR does not get confused with the machinations of other parties unless they themselves will specifically pick up the issue during the election campaigns.

      Good luck to all those whith hope, it will become clearer as you go along.


      March 29, 2011 at 8:10 am

  10. Great news and great momentum. Truly an exciting time. Well done Peter, Clark French and Cure Ukay for representing in such a magnificent manner at the weekend too. You did everyone proud at the SSDP conference.

    Jason Reed

    March 29, 2011 at 12:47 am

  11. It all sounds good to me. I will be re-joining just as soon as the new procedure is in place. I was a member of LCA but when my PayPal got frozen it lapsed and I let it slide, but with this new impetus I do feel fired up again. You can count me in for leaflet distribution and internet activity.


    March 29, 2011 at 6:54 am

  12. Hopefully Peter won’t mind my posting this link:

    If you want to give your views esp Q7 on medical mitigation for drug offences.


    March 29, 2011 at 10:12 am

  13. Peter, have you encountered this news yet?
    A very powerful tool in CLEAR’s arsenal. Is there any ETA on a new website and logo yet? the current LCA website is a pathetic face to such a strong and righteous cause.

    E. Tricker

    March 29, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    • Thanks for that. We are working v v hard on the new identity and website.

      Peter Reynolds

      March 29, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    • This research should be publisized with vigor.


      March 31, 2011 at 10:23 am

  14. Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek advice from NORML. They have a lot of experience in campaigning for the cause. A nice and simple website like theirs would be good, except with a forum.


    March 29, 2011 at 6:48 pm

  15. Cannabis Law Reform does not abbreviate to CLEAR! Other than that, great work!

    I hope alongside fielding candidates you’ll be advising supporters to vote for AV. Otherwise, come the next election, I don’t think CLEAR will get the votes (and Short money) it deserves.

    Adam C

    March 29, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    • Honestly Adam, who’s a party pooper then?

      I’m very happy with using CLEAR as our short form and it’s had a fantastic reaction from everyone.

      How do you score on the Rorschach ink blot test? What does it say about you?

      Peter Reynolds

      March 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm

  16. Someone needs to see this….

    “What are the health effects?
    The health effects if you smoke it are similar to the effects of tobacco. There is increased risk of mouth cancer (do not google this), lung cancer, heart disease and bronchitis.

    In a very small minority of people, dope can trigger serious mental illness. It is best to avoid it if you have a family history of schizophrenia or similar illnesses.

    Likewise, if you smoke heavily over a long period you will feel like you are in a permanent brain fog. You could end up with serious paranoia as well.

    Some people use cannabis to relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis or chronic pain.”

    Seriously WTF.., i have the original screen capture if you need it IF they manage to change it. I lodged a phone complaint from the 0800 number on that site.


    March 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    • i sent a complaint to the bbc about that page

      a quiet man

      March 30, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      • Remember children.., DONT GOOGLE IT!

        I thought that was ..,. well i really didn’t know WHAT to make of that to be quite honest.


        March 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      • I think they mean it as ‘do not Google this because the pictures are horrible’.

        The content of the page isn’t great though. Whoever thought that you can only cook with solids or that marijuana only refers to herbal cannabis. Riddled with little errors, but I notice a general positive tone about it.


        March 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      • here is the status so far
        remember my complaint to the B.B.C about the advice on cannabis page here it is with the B.B.C response.
        if i search the bbc website for advice on cannabis i am directed to this page where the information is false and i am advised not to check other sources of information the links to cancer treatment and proper medicinal use are very easy to get on other sites .I pay a licence fee and dont like being treated like a fool with lies being passed out as good advice. you should be ashamed of the harm you do by spreading this type of lie the bbc should be truthful when dealing with such an important subject and it should hold the truth as the most important thing when giving advice. please remove this page and put something more truthful in its place right away the longer it stays up the more damage you will cause to your reputation.
        i used to think the B.B.C would stand for something fool me once shame on you. here is the response

        Thank you for your correspondence regarding the BBC Website.

        I understand you’re unhappy because you believe the BBC should be advising users to use the Google search engine instead of its own internal search engine as you feel Google is more accurate.

        We couldn’t recommend any one search engine as the BBC is committed to impartiality with other search engines such as Yahoo and Bing being available, among others, and we wouldn’t offer a preference over any other capable engines. We would hope that users would use their own preferences when it comes to searching for information on the web or individual websites such as

        The main concern though when using search engines such as Google, Yahoo or Bing is that many users may not be able to identify what is an official BBC page and what isn’t, leading them to believe that, what may potentially be non-BBC, is BBC related, particularly if the non-BBC website contains harmful software. If a user stays within our website, then we can at least inform them, using a disclaimer, that they may be leaving our website and that any content located on there isn’t the responsibility of the BBC.

        I appreciate your concerns, in that you feel the current search engine within the BBC website is poor quality and doesn’t always locate the exact information needed, so I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our Audience Log. This is daily report of audience feedback and it’s made available to all BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

        The Audience Logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions on future BBC programmes and content.

        Once again, thank you for contacting us.

        Kind Regards

        I Responded

        please can you respond to the complaint i made again,
        Your first response does not answer my complaint. I did not complain about search engines
        ,My complaint is about B.B.C content, you deliberately ignored what i said please remember I pay you wage via the licence fee so you work for me Up untill i saw this b.b.c webpage I trusted that the editors code was respected and held to at the B,B,C but on this page you have published lies about Cannabis.
        as a parent i want my children to be educated and aware of all sides to the drug debates and I always trusted that the B.B.C would deliver a trustworthy unbiased service this page does not do either
        your advise not to check the truthfulness of your claims about Cannabis and Cancer is a disgrace
        I demand that you remove this page urgently and replace it with links to some of the many sites that do not lie to their readers.
        I am also very offended by your first response to my complaint it would appear that you did not read what i asked as you went into a long explanation about search engines .
        So can you please give this complaint to someone who deserves to collect a wage .
        This complaint is about editorial content on a B,B,C webpage that is Biased and misleading at the least the person responsible deserves to loose their job.
        I will post the response when i get it

        a quiet man

        April 5, 2011 at 11:56 am

      • Absolutely brilliant AQM!

        Here’s their response to my complaint:

        —– Original Message —–
        To: Peter Reynolds
        Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 11:32 PM
        Subject: BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-685587-038S7J

        Dear Mr Reynolds

        Reference CAS-685587-038S7J

        Thank you for your e-mail.

        Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry you’ve had to wait on this occasion.

        I’ve since forwarded your correspondence to the people responsible for the website. Whilst I can’t guarantee a response from them directly due to the amount of correspondence received on a daily basis, I can guarantee that the issue has been made available to them.

        I hope you continue to enjoy our services and thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

        Kind Regards

        Tanya McKee
        BBC Complaints

        I’ll post up my reply.

        Peter Reynolds

        April 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm

      • From: Peter Reynolds
        Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:45 PM
        Subject: Fw: BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-685587-038S7J

        Dear Sirs,

        With respect, this is a completely unhelpful reply but not as unhelpful as some of the replies other people who have also complained about this website have received.

        We are co-ordinating response to the appalling misinformation about cannabis on your website. We are collating your replies in order to reveal just how uselss this complaints procedure is.

        Please escalate my complaint. I want a proper response and I want the inaccurate information you have published corrected.


        Peter Reynolds


        BBC Audience Services is not even the BBC. It is a division of Capita, the outsourcing company. You have to get past stage three of the complaints procedure before a real BBC person even sees your complaint.

        Peter Reynolds

        April 5, 2011 at 1:49 pm

      • Oh no, Capita. Terrible organisation. They are the ones who harrass me (and many other innocent folk) on a regular basis, as I am a non-T.V. watching person and therefore do not have a licence. They hound everyone to buy one, and the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” seems to be a foreign language to them.


        April 5, 2011 at 4:57 pm

      • well looks like someone is paying attention. they removed the do not google phrase but they still claim cannabis will cause cancer and cause mental illness so another complaint i think.

        a quiet man

        April 7, 2011 at 11:51 pm

      • aha! now they do! two years ago i sent them an imeil (of course, i probably didn’t write in a format that they felt deserved any kind of action, somehow my choice of words or the combination of them was not good enough to make them move -bastards lol

        daniel carter

        April 13, 2011 at 8:50 am

      • hey the B,B,C sent a response to my second complaint here it is..
        Dear Terry

        Thanks for your further contact.

        Please accept our apologies that the initial response you received did not accurately answer your complaint. I have looked into the text on the page and consider its content to be an accurate reflection of what is commonly discussed about cannabis and also the medical evidence relating to its proven side effects.

        I have, however, removed the line ‘don’t Google this’. I can only assume that at the time this page was published, this wording was included to protect people from some strong imagery around mouth cancer that Google would automatically return. Either way, I agree, contextually it is not appropriate, and in this instance we have removed that phrase as a result of your complaint.

        If you wish to escalate your complaint to the next stage in our complaints process, please write to Chris Kimber, Managing Editor, BBC Audio & Music Interactive within 20 working days at the following address:

        Henry Wood House
        3-6 Langham Place
        W1B 3DF

        Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

        Ben Chapman
        Interactive Editor Radio 1

        NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided

        a small victory

        a quiet man

        April 18, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      • years ago a B,B,C manager told me complaints that mention the licence fee were always looked at by management so could be handy for future reference lol

        a quiet man

        April 18, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      • well i sent this wee note telling them I wanted to escalate my complaint .

        this page still makes claims that cannabis causes cancer .removing the do not google line is not enough why do you not report the latest science instead of delivering old rhetoric that is proven wrong? this page is to advise kids so what is wrong with telling the truth about cannabis there are more than enough doctors and scientists willing to advise the B.B.C on what the real dangers of giving Bad advice and the harm that comes from that . any body who reads your advice page only to discover the lies you have printed will stop looking for advice . why not remove the entire article and replace it with the science of today. what is stopping you from telling my kids the truth about cannabis?

        I will post reply when i get one

        a quiet man

        April 23, 2011 at 10:29 pm

      • just got the reply here it is.

        Thank you for your further comments. I can only repeat my view that the text on our page linking cannabis and cancer is an accurate reflection of what is commonly discussed about cannabis, and also the available medical evidence.

        For example, please see:

        If you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent investigation. You can write to them at the following address:

        Editorial Complaints Unit

        Room 5170

        White City

        201 Wood Lane

        London W12 7TS

        Alternatively you can e-mail the Unit at the address:, but please note that complaints submitted via e-mail must include a postal address as ECU findings are sent by letter.

        With good wishes,

        Ben Chapman
        Interactive Editor Radio 1.
        So what do you all think

        a quiet man

        May 1, 2011 at 1:18 pm

      • You are now at the point where your complaint can start to count. You are going to have to make it very specific to breaches of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.You will have to show how the balance of all the evidence is against the sources quoted. Good luck with it. I’ll be happy to look over anything you draft if you’d like me to.

        Peter Reynolds

        May 1, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    • Yes, I’ve made a complaint as well Jim.

      Peter Reynolds

      April 1, 2011 at 8:14 am

  17. just type cannabis on the bbc website and look at the crap they have up to EDUCATE & INFORM i used to work in radio years ago and the bbc would never have chanced that kind of crap

    a quiet man

    March 30, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    • You’re not “Whispering Bob” Harris….?!


      May 5, 2011 at 8:12 pm

  18. ROFLMAO @ inblot test.

    Nice one Peter, had me stitches.. still a score of 86% is not to be sniffed at. 🙂

    L Catt

    March 30, 2011 at 7:19 pm

  19. Sometimes the world seems a very very strange place.

    The founders of prohibition have this

    And we get our Prime Minister calling it very very toxic and a Home Office that refuse to accept cannabis has any medicinal value at all.

    And a section of the press dictating drug policy!


    March 30, 2011 at 8:00 pm

  20. Good luck, Peter, with the new Party configuration, though I’m not qualified to judge its potentials.

    I wanted to observe that on an earlier occasion I noted an illustration of a big “joint” and am happy to see it replaced by an illustration of an Utensil with a crater small enough to exclude the catastrophic practice of “mixing with tobacco”.

    If you have access to the illustrator, you might suggest that they alter it slightly to show a long flexible drawtube giving vapors travel time to cool down before reaching the user’s trachea. Also if I were technically better equipped than this Public Liebrwery Computer I’d send a guide-diagram showing two (2) flexible stems emanating from outvents of the utensil, from which the attractively illustrated persons can be shown sucking simultaneously (twice as mild per partner).

    A further tip– for a way to exert informative media influence, check out the cannabis-related articles on Wikipedia and, where warranted, sign in with a user-name and edit/improve the coverage (or add more useful photos,diagrams etc.). “Cannabis (drug)” gets over 27,000 hits a day according to an October 2010 survey; “Hashish” gets 6000, and my favorite, “One hitter (smoking)”, gets 1191 a day– adds up to 400,000 a year.


    March 31, 2011 at 1:12 am

  21. LOL Peter have you seen this?

    Really…, internet dramaz are teh best dramaz


    March 31, 2011 at 9:34 am

  22. With you all the way. I love the new name concept.


    March 31, 2011 at 11:51 am

  23. By the way, who the hell is that imbecile that is attacking you on the peterreynoldsmonitor blog ? Do you know who he is ? He got me so angry that I posted this on his crappy toilet paper blog: “Me thinks you are a waste of human potential and intelligence. Grow a brain in your spare time. It might help you get your head off your ass.” Not gentlemanly, but I get furious when idiots use their potential creativity just to attack others.
    Could some nefarious foreign intelligence (oxymoron) be behind this ? Or is personal ?
    Check this out:


    March 31, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    • Obviously it is an egotistical wannabe guru who feels their noses have been well and truly put out of joint.

      Personally I think Peters approach is spot on, as the saying goes.. “GET OUT OF THE POOL” if all you can contribute is negativity and the motivation is to disrupt. How sad is that?

      No political or non political group would stand for such behaviour it is akin to me joining the Tory party and start slagging it right off… what’s all that about?

      Anyone not on board or not prepared to give this a go is either a dealer with vested interests in keeping prohibition, or an egotistical wannabe guru, take your pick.

      My Da used to say if people are talking about you, your doing something right, green eyed monsters are everywhere.

      Tossers imho and we are better off without them, I leave any prejudices I may have towards peters political leanings firmly in check as I want an end to prohibition, I want to be able to grow and smoke in peace not fear and tell me who other than Peter has given us that hope? Who has achieved MORE in the last 6 months than those dissenters put together?

      Only one answer and that answer is Peter Reynold et al.

      CLEAR has some excellent people on board, and we would not be where we are today if Peter had not come along. FACT.

      (I submitted a post yesterday and my comment was being moderated, if anything untoward has been commented using my email address please check the ISP, I was forced to delete a long standing email address because a well known internet troll abused the trust when I commented on their site, so anything naughty happening I would like to be the first to know.)

      L Catt

      March 31, 2011 at 12:22 pm

      • I too am waiting for my comments to be moderated, I suspect they won’t be.

        You’ve got me a little worried about my e-mail address being used for something untoward. Anyone know who this fruitcake is? So I can take it up with them if indeed my e-mail address is abused (thankfully its an e-mail I use just for posting on word press sites, but thats not the point!)


        March 31, 2011 at 12:38 pm

  24. its time to take the cash away from the crims who
    live a lavish lifestyle on the backs of med users and recreational cannabis users
    cannabis aint going away so lets take the fight to the ballot box,only way i reckon

    teddys head

    March 31, 2011 at 3:56 pm

  25. I suggest anyone outraged with the stalker-esque type website to comment on it, tell those responsible just what you think of them.

    I have so has my nephew and other people I know but guess what… those comments are not published, instead some self appointed gum shoe, is running around trying to dig up some dirt.. for crying out loud the mentality of some people really does take the biscuit.

    It is my own belief that these sort of negative attacks will work in CLeaR’s favour, if all they can offer is tittle tattle, then they are better off out of it imho.

    I see on the LCA website that the new membership rates are published but cannot for the life of me find the application form.

    CLeaR is something special, the BMCR is beautiful in its concept, keep the momentum going, hopefully the membership numbers will speak for themselves.

    L Catt

    March 31, 2011 at 10:34 pm

  26. I’m astonished but, I have to say, very flattered by my very own hate website. As Lucky says above, for anyone to go to that much time and trouble, I must be doing something right!

    I really do feel very encouraged by this and I think we can all take heart that it means we are making progress.

    I shall be writing about this later today.

    Peter Reynolds

    April 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm

  27. Peter – thought you would like to see this:

    It is a seriously academic book – discussing the potential roadmap out of our present cannabis policy


    April 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm

  28. Also
    Mark Easton blogged on violence in the drugs market yesterday:


    April 1, 2011 at 4:03 pm

  29. This is impressive.
    I smoked cannabis recreationally until 2007, now has come the time when I would require it for medicinal purposes it’s not available to me.
    Things are finally going in the right direction and I look forward to a free England where people aren’t punished for this redundant law.

    Prohibition needs to end, enough is enough.


    April 1, 2011 at 8:31 pm

  30. It upsets me so much that we’ve lost access to such a basic human freedom and so many are remain silent. I hope I find my place in the effort to raise awareness of tragically outdated drug laws and eventually end them. I will be joining up and will continue to write in order to better peoples understanding of all the potential good of hemp and devastating impact of prohibition on human lives.


    April 3, 2011 at 12:53 am

  31. >>It is a seriously academic book – discussing the potential roadmap out of our present cannabis policy

    I will second that – well worth a read.

    This is great news by the way – I hope this new campaign site is going to live in its own domain, not on wordpress (no offence meant, Peter).



    I get ‘403 forbidden’.


    April 6, 2011 at 6:41 am

  32. Much Karma Pete & keep up the good fight!! We need many more just like you!!! For so many are silent, and the people in power take that silence for weakness!! This is not so, as long as we take up the fight & we have people(such as yourself) to lead the charge!!! PEOPLE IT IS UP TO US TO END THE PROHIBITION!!!


    April 7, 2011 at 4:21 pm

  33. I like the decisive nature of the change as the LCA had become a pressure group with no pressure.

    Education is the key to winning this fight and the recent studies by Prof. Nutt et. al. can only serve to highlight the extreme prejudice suffered by users of cannabis.

    I also agree that the medicinal route adopted by campaigners in the more liberal US states is the best way to highlght the inequity of current UK laws against medical users.

    I must, however, agree with the guy who said CLEAR is a bad accronym.

    Although using badly appointed accronyms seemed to fall into fashion during the last labour govt; I think any pro cannabis organisation needs be aware that the whole cannabis scene is stigmatised by the mainstream media.

    Newspaper editors will no doubt have a field day with editorials such as:

    A; The “hapless” “stoners” were “high” on “superskunk” when they thought up the name

    B: Clear is the anithesis of the effects of the “genetically modified” “SUPERWEED” who’s medicinal use they advocate.

    Aside from the unfortunate accronym good luck but please be aware that the fight isnt only in education of facts.

    Money is a big part of this and wherever money is involved; facts can be forgotten.

    There is a significant element within the banksters and industrialists who consider cannabis to have a negative effect on productivity and therefore output.

    Whilst they continue to influence the masses via their control of mainstream media, cannabis will never be legalised in any shape or form in the major Western European Economies.`

    We should learn from the money men how to deal with legislative issues that obstruct our goals.
    In the case of the investment bank during the run up to the economic crisis they used the mantra:

    ” If you owe the bank (in the case of the banks it was actually the govt/taxpayer) £10,000 and cant pay you are in trouble”
    If you owe the bank £10,000,000 and cant pay they are in trouble.”

    Every single person that uses cannabis should cease all illegal purchases and set up their own small scale grow operation using the current guidelines of no more than 10 plants to avoid crown court.

    WIth an estimated 5 million regular uses in the UK this would create an impossible issue for the UK magistrates system and would provide virtual decriminalisation for responsible consumers.

    If all responsible users agreed to keep less than 10 plants, not supply anyone and to never remove the Cannabis from their home the problem dissapears overnight as there is no issue to police.

    Randy Marsh

    April 12, 2011 at 9:07 am

  34. regarding your “own hate website”… you made yourself, don’t you? lol i can’t believe anyone else would bother

    daniel carter

    April 13, 2011 at 8:57 am

  35. I like this organization but I think this new “charter” is somewhat misguided. Because to me it appears you are making the same mistake that is occuring in my country: the United States. Around 2000 the moneyed organizations began to couch legalization with “taxation and regulation.” In my learned opinion this was largely due to George Soros, a primary financier of the “moneyed” organizations (e.g., NORML, DPA, MPP etc.). Soros motivation is monopolization which would not achieve the following objectives:

    (1) destroy the Cartels
    (2) Provide cheap medicine to the sick and poor
    (3) Stop the invasion of our homes

    The only way to achieve these goals is to “deschedule” Cannabis by taking it off the Controlled Substances ACT. Great Britian could easily adopt this strategy which is known as MERP (e.g., the Tomato Model). Here are 50+ essays on the advantage of this approach:

    Because Marijuana is Safer that Beer . . .
    How About We Start Treating It That Way?
    MERP Headquarters
    The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= “MERP”

    Bruce Cain

    April 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm

  36. One for non-smokers, smokers, growers alike.

    1) Pick a charity for a month. I propose the MS Society to start with (vested interest)
    2) Knock up a viral marketing campaign – 30 seconds on YouTube is priceless
    3) Encourage people (smokers and non-smokers) to donate £1 to charity in that month
    4) wait for charity to announce jump in donations of x%.
    5) Stick it to the Daily Mail
    6) Goto 1 (suggest cancer charities, and ones that might benefit from legal cannabis)

    of course the trick is in (2). But “A pound against prohibition” could almost be it’s own slogan.


    April 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    • Great idea Jimmy. I’d love to run something like this and will consider it. The reality is there are so many things that we would like to do but we don’t have the manpower or funding to do them all. I shall certainly consider it. The MS Society is the only flaw in your concept. Their record in supporting MS patients who use cannabis is appalling. They are cowardly, insincere, hypocritical… need I go on? The MS Trust has a much more enlightened attitude.

      Peter Reynolds

      April 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm

      • The actual charities are immaterial. The trick is to get cannabis users in a positive light, in a way that they feel safe doing. Protest marches and petitions are too risky – they expose the activist. But an anonymous £1 donation ? Also, with a slogan, and maybe a logo, you might be able to engage celebrities. The other reasoning behind it was to have a clear cut way people can expose the governments lie that people don’t want cannabis legalised. There was also a slightly more Machiavellian motive too … if such a campaign took off, and a certain charity reported a 200% increase in donations, and a month later another charity the same, then big business might start to smell the money, and get onside. Of course you could be really cruel, and suggest a charity that works with alcohol addicts.

        In my opinion, they beauty of such a move (protest by proxy) is it makes it almost impossible to slur the cannabis community. I once suggested using this tactic to donate enough to build a hospital ward, on the proviso it was called the Spliff ward.

        On a more serious note, I take your point about the MS Society – as a partner to an MS sufferer, I have no time for them. It was merely a suggestion that, certainly in the early stages, maybe medical charities that work with conditions cannabis can help with should be used.


        April 18, 2011 at 6:31 pm

  37. […] the good work he has done so far. So what can we look forward to with the new campaign? On his blog Peter described the aims of CLEAR 1. To end the prohibition of cannabis. 2. To promote as a matter […]

  38. if you want to legalize canabish membership fees of £10 a year an 8 costs roughly £15 pay roughly£1.50 tax takes canabis smokers away from dealers no more gateway to other drugs thatdealears have kill the bugdet deffrenece in a couple of years


    March 14, 2015 at 12:55 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: