Posts Tagged ‘CLEAR’
How You Can Help The Campaign For Medicinal Cannabis.
Using The Volcano Vapouriser With Medicinal Cannabis
CLEAR is launching a new recruitment drive for its Medicinal Cannabis Users Panel. If you use cannabis as medicine, joining the panel is the most effective thing you can do both to advance the campaign and, in some instances, gain legitimate access to prescribed Bedrocan medicinal cannabis.
The panel has proved itself to be the most effective campaigning method ever used in the UK. As a direct result of the efforts of panel members, in the last two years there have been more meetings with government minsters, officials and senior MPs than the whole campaign has managed in the last 50 years.
You must be a member of CLEAR to join the panel, then you complete a detailed questionnaire providing information on your condition(s) and how cannabis helps. Each applicant is then interviewed by telephone to develop an individual plan. This will depend on a number of factors, such as your relationship with your doctor, your MP, how much time you have available and whether you are prepared to tell your story to the media.
If your doctor is prepared to help, there is now an established route to getting medicinal cannabis prescribed and legally imported into the UK. CLEAR has developed this process through experience working with doctors, MPs, the Home Office and the Border Force. We also have crucial support from the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Drug Policy Reform and a number of members of the House of Lords. This is on a private prescription basis only. The prescription has to be very carefully written, using exactly the correct wording and, to begin with, you will have to travel to Holland in person to have the prescription dispensed at a pharmacy. Thereafter it may be possible to have repeat prescriptions sent through the post.
Bedrocan Products
Bedrocan is the Dutch government’s official producer of medicinal cannabis. Five different varieties are available at a cost of approximately seven to eight euros per gram. See full details of the different products here.
All panel members are guided in how to approach their doctor and MP. Initial contact should be made by letter or email but then it is important to meet your doctor and MP face to face and provide them with high quality scientific evidence to support your case. CLEAR will offer guidance and help at every stage. If you wish then a member of our executive committee will accompany you to meetings to help you present your case. Whether or not your doctor is prepared to write a prescription for you, we aim to continue leading delegations of medicinal users to meet ministers. We have seen again and again what an impact this can have. When senior politicians who have no experience of medicinal cannabis meet genuine, decent, ordinary people with families and careers who tell their story with sincerity and conviction, it has an enormous impact.
If you live in the UK and are interested in joining the panel, please email a brief explanation of your interest to: meduserspanel@clear-uk.org
Please do not go into great detail at this stage. Applications should be no more than 200 words. We will respond to you with a questionnaire within seven to 10 days.
Why I Have Joined the Liberal Democrats.
In my view the only rational choice for the next UK government is another Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.
The Labour Party is simply a joke. Miliband is an out-of-touch, Hampstead-socialist buffoon who was part of the team whose reckless borrowing meant that the banking crisis destroyed this country’s economy. It is ludicrous that we should even consider giving the same people another chance.
Cameron is an oily, two-faced oaf who has transformed the Conservative Party into the Bullingdon Club Party, dominated by out-of-touch posh boys with quasi-fascists like Theresa May, Iain Duncan Smith and Chris Grayling as their attack dogs.
The only redeeming factor about the Tories is a basic competence in managing the economy. Osborne knows what he is doing but left unrestrained he would devastate our society: trashing the benefits system, care for the disabled and access to justice.
We must have the decent, fair, rational and conscientious Liberal Democrats in government with the Tories. Crucially they must hold out for a much tougher coalition agreement which will see the disgusting policies of Duncan Smith and Grayling reversed. I think it’s too much to hope that we will see the back of Theresa May but definitely, in my area of special interest, the Liberal Democrats will insist on drugs policy reform. The evidence-free, prejudice-based, self-defeating and cruel drugs policies of the past must be overturned. They have caused too much harm, suffering and promoted the interests of organised crime and the alcohol industry over common sense and the national interest.
So, in February I joined the Liberal Democrats. I was free to do so because that month the CLEAR Executive Committee resolved that we would no longer be a political party. An explanation of that decision is here.
My decision had a lot to do with drugs policy but, as I have explained above, was considered across the wider issues. I think it reflects the fact that the LibDems are less ideologically-driven, more rational, evidence-based and fair in their policies. All my life I have been a Tory voter for the crucial values of individual liberty, regulated free markets and opposed to the cloying, repressive ideas of socialism and the overbearing state – but the Tories have lost their way, their moral compass and their integrity. I will never, ever vote Tory again.
CLEAR has worked closely with the LibDems since I first led a delegation of medicinal cannabis users to meet Norman Baker, then drugs minister, in July 2014. Just a few weeks later he publicly called for a change in policy on medicinal cannabis, the most significant breakthrough in the UK cannabis campaign for nearly 50 years. This year we have worked closely with Nick Clegg’s team and the LibDem manifesto incorporated CLEAR’s policy on medicinal cannabis word for word. I had the privilege of personally briefing him on medicinal cannabis just a few weeks ago. Julian Huppert, Norman Lamb and Lynne Featherstone, also LibDems, have been of great help to the CLEAR campaign and demonstrated outstanding sincerity, honesty and commitment, uncommon qualities amongst politicians. Personally, I also greatly admire the courage of LibDem David Ward in standing against Israeli war crimes and in support of Palestine.
On the narrow issue of drugs policy, once again, Labour is a joke. It doesn’t have one. With a few honourable exceptions, such as Paul Flynn, David Winnick and Bob Ainsworth, the party is stuck in reefer madness, terrorised by tabloid editors and prefers prejudice and scare stories to science and evidence. The Tories have more individuals who support reform but the party as a whole is in a corrupt relationship with the alcohol industry and also terrorised by the tabloid press.
As far as the Greens are concerned, yes they have a sensible drugs policy (originally drafted, in fact, by Derek Williams, my colleague on the CLEAR Executive Committee) but they have no chance of any influence in the new government. Caroline Lucas did a good job on getting the drugs debate in Parliament last year but I cannot support her party’s bizarre behaviour in the illiberal ‘No More Page 3’ censorship and fracking campaigns. The Green’s attitude to fracking is as evidence-free and based on prejudice as is Labour’s attitude to cannabis. Also, CLEAR gave the Greens an opportunity to present their drugs policy to our supporters but despite repeated efforts they couldn’t get it together. By contrast, the LibDems welcomed us enthusiastically and at the highest level.
I am a Eurosceptic LibDem, which is unusual. In fact, I voted for UKIP in the last European elections and although the party itself is confused on the issue, I have talked with Nigel Farage in person at length on drugs policy and he is progressive, intelligent and pragmatic on the subject.
CISTA, the Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol party? Well, I know a number of the candidates personally and I would recommend voting for them in constituencies where the LibDems stand no chance. Overall though the party is a waste of Paul Birch’s money and I can say that with the experience of CLEAR’s 16 years as a political party. It’s great that they are bringing some attention to the campaign but it’s a futile strategy and Birch has spurned all efforts at support and assistance from CLEAR. Had he even returned our calls we would have endorsed and promoted CISTA candidates in some constituencies.
So in conclusion, for drugs policy reform, particularly for access to medicinal cannabis, but also for a fairer society where policy is based on evidence and compassion rather than prejudice and vested interests, vote Liberal Democrat!
Why Do I Stand Against Protests, Demonstrations and ‘420’ Events?
The protests, public smoking, stereotypical ‘drop-out’ behaviour, cause DAMAGE to the cannabis campaign.
I don’t give a damn how people dress, or what they smoke or do, as long as they’re peaceful. In the ’70s, I lived in Vondel Park, Amsterdam, for two years and later I hitch-hiked around Europe and North Africa with a guitar on my back. I’m still a hippy at heart.
When you want to persuade people, when you need to win hearts and minds, when you want to achieve reform, it doesn’t matter what you think, what your ‘rights’ are, or what is ‘just’ or ‘fair’.
All that matters is the perception of the people whose minds you need to change. It’s what they think that you need to consider, instead of getting angry about what you feel you’re being denied.
It’s a question of what works. We know what hasn’t worked, at all, in the last 50 years and what has worked in the last three years – and spectacularly in the last year.
CLEAR is now working with the policymakers in the Tory and LibDem parties.The campaign has never been closer to a breakthrough. The real work is done in meetings and by hard graft, drafting polices, proposals and boring but essential follow-ups.
Civil disobedience and protests produce a dopamine rush in those attending them – and probably serotonin as well, the ‘togetherness’ buzz. That’s all it is. They have never got us anywhere, just emphasised that cannabis users are ‘different’ and ‘separate’ from the rest of society – and that’s no way to achieve reform because it’s not true! So why, on these occasions, does anyone think it’s sensible to dress and behave as if they’re ‘different’ and ‘separate’?
I don’t blame the people who attend. I blame the tactic, the methods and the organisers who pursue these events for self-aggrandisement (and, increasingly, for profit), not for the sake of the cause.
When the cannabis campaign grows up and understands this pretty basic marketing, then we will be unstoppable.
I greatly look forward to the day when ‘420’ can be a celebration of cannabis as a legal pleasure and not a confused, self-defeating embarrassment.
Cannabis Saves Lives.
CLEAR has published a revised and updated version of its leaflet on medicinal cannabis. This will shortly be available for purchase and for inclusion in membership packs. As with the previous version we shall also be carrying our carefully targeted and timed leafleting campaigns. Each year we choose a relevant day to saturate Parliament Square and Whitehall with the CLEAR message.
If you have an event or an opportunity to distribute leaflets, please get in touch. We are always ready to consider a special print run.
Peter Reynolds of CLEAR, Nick Rijke of MS Society. BBC Radio Kent, 8th April 2015
Julia George interviews Peter Reynolds of CLEAR, following publication of the report ‘Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence’. Nick Rijke, of the MS Society, comments on using cannabis to treat multiple sclerosis and how Sativex, the only licensed cannabis medicine, is very difficult to obtain on prescription.
Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence.
Today CLEAR publishes ‘Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence’, a comprehensive and up to date review of the evidence supporting the use of cannabis as medicine.
The report details an extraordinary quantity of peer-reviewed, published evidence that demonstrates the efficacy and safety of using cannabis to treat a wide range of conditions. It looks in detail at five therapeutic areas where the evidence is strongest: Alzheimer’s Disease, Cancer, Chronic Pain, Crohn’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis.
Archaeological and written evidence suggests mankind has used cannabis for medicinal purposes for as long as 10,000 years. In the 19th century nearly half of all medicines in the British and US pharmacopeia contained cannabis. With the rise of new pharmaceutical medicines it fell into disuse but in 1996 California introduced the first ‘medical marijuana’ laws. Now 210 million people in 34 US states and 250 million people in nine European countries have some form of legal access.
Peter Reynolds, author of the report, said:
“This review finally does away with the myth that there is no proof of the value of medicinal cannabis. There is high quality evidence available from dozens of different sources, including double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. No one who examines the evidence can be in any doubt, any longer. This is a medicine that saves lives and rescues people from pain, suffering and disability with far fewer dangerous and unpleasant side effects than pharmaceutical products. We must move urgently to allow doctors to start prescribing and introduce professional training in the use of cannabis medicines”
The report is available to download from the CLEAR website: http://clear-uk.org/static/media/Reports/medicinal_cannabis-_the_evidence_v1.1.pdf
CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform is the UK’s leading drugs policy reform group with more than 330,000 followers. It aims to end the prohibition of cannabis most urgently for those who need it as medicine. CLEAR also advocates replacing the anarchic mess of prohibition with a framework of regulation which would allow proper control of the product’s strength and quality while providing protection for children and the vulnerable.
CLEAR’s policies are based on independent, expert research carried out by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit in 2011: http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf
CLEAR’s detailed proposals for cannabis regulation, ‘How To Regulate Cannabis In Britain’: http://clear-uk.org/static/media/uploads/2013/10/CLEAR-plan-V2.pdf
Medicinal Cannabis AdVan Campaign in London.
Artist’s Impression
Join The Campaign For Medicinal Cannabis On A Doctor’s Prescription.
Despite overwhelming evidence, the UK government insists that cannabis has “no medicinal value”. Present policy is deeply cruel and means that at least one million people in Britain are forced to become criminals in order to deal with their pain, suffering or disability.
We must change this dreadful and unjust policy. It’s time to help rather than persecute people who genuinely need cannabis to improve their health. DONATE HERE.
The AdVan Campaign.
CLEAR is the UK’s leading drugs policy reform group with more than 270,000 followers. We will run an AdVan for one week in central London during the busy pre-Christmas period. This will deliver the simple, direct message that you see above and it will be backed by a supporting PR campaign, lobbying of government ministers and MPs as well as further information on the CLEAR website.
Please donate whatever you can. Every pound makes a difference. We need to raise £3500 to run the AdVan for one week. If we raise more we will run it for longer. DONATE HERE.
Please Donate Now!
Our Simple And Reasonable Request To UK Government.
In 1998, GW Pharmaceuticals was granted a licence to grow cannabis and its cannabis oil medicine, Sativex, is now approved but doctors are prevented from prescribing it because it is so fantastically expensive.
The Dutch government approves a cannabis medicine called Bedrocan which provides exactly the same as Sativex at a tiny fraction of the price. Sativex costs between £375 – £560 per month. Bedrocan costs £35 – £95 per month.
All we ask is that if a doctor prescribes Bedrocan, the Home Office should issue an import licence. This is a narrow, tightly defined reform that will not encourage illicit use but will provide enormous help to some very poorly people. DONATE HERE.
Further Background.
Every year, thousands of medicinal cannabis users are prosecuted for possessing or growing cannabis. Often it is the only medicine that helps them with chronic pain, fibromyalgia, MS, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, depression or many of the conditions related to aging. It is also used to mitigate the side effects of chemotherapy and HIV/Aids treatments.
In November 2014, the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker resigned as a government minister because of the Conservatives’ refusal even to consider drugs policy reform. In July 2014 he met with members of CLEAR and publicly called for cannabis to be legalised for medicinal use. Other ministers are more concerned with stopping people getting high (which they are going to do anyway) than in helping those with severe medical conditions. DONATE HERE.
Other Ways You Can Help
Join CLEAR at http://clearmembers-uk.org
Visit and ‘like’ our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/ClearUK
Follow us on Twitter @CLEARUK
High Court Judgment On Greg De Hoedt.
Reynolds v De Hoedt
Hearing note – 22 May 2014
Royal Courts of Justice
Master Bard in Chambers
Application to set-aside Default Judgment of 23 February 2014
JUDGMENT
Greg De Hoedt
1. This is an application to set aside a Default Judgment of 23 February in a libel action brought by the Claimant.
2. The Defendant has been represented by Mr McLean. The Claimant was represented by a Mackenzie friend, who is a pupil, who addressed me in terms clear and modest, and perfectly proper.
3. The temperate nature of the hearing has not been matched by the matters which have gone on between the parties. The Claimant is president of CLEAR which is campaigning for the legalisation of cannabis. The Defendant and others used to be with CLEAR but departed in circumstances described at best as acrimonious and became associated with NORML which has similar aims. As it happens there has been a great deal of unpleasantness and vituperation. As far as I can tell it has been largely one way and directed at the Claimant, who has brought libel proceedings against three defendants.
4. The evidence shows that the Defendant was not responsive or receptive to approaches from the Claimant to seek to get him to desist publishing numerous defamatory allegations on the internet and not prepared to provide an address for service. When the Claimant used the business premises associated with the Defendant and the Defendant’s parent’s address on both occasions the documents were returned. The Defendant states that he had not been given the documents or told about them. This is something I am asked to view askance, suffice to say Master Eastman was prepared on seeing the Sheriff’s documents showing contracts at a particular address to make an Order deeming that an address for service.
5. Default Judgment was granted on 23 February. On 26 February the Claimant notified the Defendant by email. On 14 March the Defendant’s Solicitor went on record. On 26 March about 28 days after the judgment was granted the Application was made to set-aside.
6. The Claimant is seeking damages and an injunction and Master Eastman did not have power to grant an injunction and he directed when entering Judgment that it was for the Claimant to list the application for an injunction before a judge. This is due on 4 June
7. I have not so far gone into the detail of the allegations made and complained of in the Particulars of Claim. I should start by commenting that a considerable amount of what has been said by the Defendant can only be characterised as puerile, as to the publications and the response which has arisen from attempts by the Claimant to be in contact with him. Although the Defendant contends that the Claimant directed tirades at him I have seen no evidence of this. The way the Claimant has expressed himself has been surprisingly temperate given the nature of the allegations published. Without going into any details the substance includes that he has paedophilic tendencies, he has reported cannabis users to the police, a serious allegation for him, that he has been pocketing large sums of money from CLEAR and that he has been given to exposing himself on the internet. I take these as a snapshot and there are other allegations.
8. I am asked to set-aside Default Judgment in circumstances where the Defendant is coming from a place which is less than attractive. Not only has he posted these puerile allegations on the internet, not only has there been apparent attempts to avoid service, as has been seen from what was tweeted by himself there is a certain kind of mockery over the Claimant’s attempt to gain redress. The Defendant produced a Witness Statement. In it he says that the Claimant has regularly subjected him to abuse by email, including making threats to take legal action. Apart from proper and understandable threats about publications I can seen no evidence at all of any regular abuse on the part of the Claimant against the Defendant. Further, although the Defendant says in his Witness Statement that will raise substantive defences he does not seek to do so at all.
9. In all these circumstances, Mr McLean properly in seeking to address me on the set-aside Application has not focused on condition (a) because subject to the pleadings point he acknowledges that the Defendant has not put forward evidence to that effect but that there is another good reason the Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
10. I have to bear in mind questions of whether the Application was made promptly…… It does not seem to me that this will be determinative of the matter. It seems that the Defendant within 2 weeks or so of learning of the Judgment had solicitors on record. Within 12 days they filed the Application to set aside the Judgment. I am not prepared to say that this is so tardy as to cause discretion to be exercised against the Defendant.
11. Because of the Defendant’s unattractive behaviour and him making it difficult that I should rely on those as good reason to decline to consider discretion rather than exercise it as he has not come to Court with clean hands. That makes the Defendant’s position unattractive but if there is a good reason to set aside then that ought not to stand in his way although it may stand in costs.
12. The strongest point that Mr McLean makes is his attack on the Particulars of Claim because he says for various reasons they are defective. I have no intention of going into details of criticisms some of which are better than others. Most of the criticisms are directed towards the point that the extent of publication cannot be known, that there is not enough material to assess damages, that sometimes the words used are not sufficiently or properly pleaded or particularised, that the claim for exemplary damages is inappropriate, that pleading malice as freestanding is inappropriate
13. I am told that Master Eastman has struck out a claim against Bovey but that is not a claim in identical form to this and not knowing the basis I am not bound by that. The Claimant acknowledges the force in some observations by the Defendant. His desire is not to seek substantial damages, not least because he recognises the difficulty of enforcement, but rather to get a judgment in his favour and an injunction to support it. He has indicated that he would be satisfied with nominal damages to have this matter dealt with once and for all, a sum of £5.
14. There is force in some of Defendant’s criticism, exemplary damages would not be awarded, malice is inappropriately pleaded but there is a good deal of material in the Particulars of Claim in publications printed off the internet which are attached to it which does meet with sufficient standards to stand up as adequate pleading it may be if matters are to go further pleadings may have to be considered
15. I have to deal with this in a manner which is proportionate and an efficient use of the Court’s resources. In exercise of my discretion, the Defendant cannot complain about the Particulars, given his failure to respond he cannot complain about judgment at £5 and a order for costs against him with the Claimant going for an injunction .
16. In regards to the Particulars of Claim, whatever particulars can stand that up as a matter to which there is no defence, there is no real prospect of successfully defending, on the material, even if pleaded by an expert, there is no good reason why judgment should be set aside or varied … nominal damages are assessed at £5, I am dismissing the application and the Claimant has costs of the Application and the action.
17. Upon hearing the solicitor for the Defendant and the Claimant in person with the assistance of a Mackenzie friend, and upon the Claimant reducing his damages to nominal damages of £5, I order;
1. Application to set aside dismissed
2. Damages assessed at £5
3. Defendant to pay the Claimants’ cost of the Application and of action to date.
COSTS
18. I will assess the litigant in person’s costs now…..Total at £18/hour. There is nothing objectionable in this. This is summarily assessed at £5000.
PERMISSION TO APPEAL
19. I am asked permission to appeal on two grounds:
1. To enlarge the Defendant’s Witness Statement
2. That the claim should be stuck out because of the way in which it is pleaded
20. I do not agree on 1. There is nothing put forward by way of real prospect so this cannot amount to a ground of appeal
21. As far as the 2nd is concerned there is no current application to strike out the claim, merely an Application for setting aside, I have expressed the view for the purposes of a judgment for nominal damages that there is easily sufficient pleadings for it to be inappropriate to set aside, it would be a wasteful use of the Court’s resources and disproportionate. Therefore I refuse permission to appeal
22. Really this is not a seemly way for anyone to conduct a genuine political campaign to be behaving. This is the sort of thing which would give that campaign a bad name… Mr McLean please pass on to your client that he should reflect on this.
23. In the same way it should be understood that it can be inflammatory to crow about a victory. I can understand any step into the right direction affords personal satisfaction. However, it must be in the interest of parties, the legal system, and the cause for this to come to an end. They are not flying the flag in an appropriate manner.
Download Greg De Hoedt’s Witness Statement
Download Peter Reynolds’ Witness Statement
Download Defendant’s Skeleton Argument
Download Claimant’s Skeleton Argument
Greg ‘Cure Ukay’ De Hoedt Ordered To Pay Peter Reynolds £5,000.
Yesterday in the High Court, represented by the top firm of media lawyers, David Price Solicitors and Advocates, Greg De Hoedt’s application to set aside the judgment I had obtained against him was dismissed. He was ordered to pay me £5,000 and refused leave to appeal.
A full transcript of the Judgment will be published here shortly. Suffice to say that the words spoken by the Judge, Master Nicholas Bard, vindicated me far more than I had dared to hope. He also had extremely harsh words to say about Chris Bovey and Sarah McCulloch, the other people I have been forced to sue for defamation.
As far as De Hoedt is concerned, he will have to find £5,000 14 days from now or face enforcement action. There is also a further hearing on 4th June 2014 when I am confident of obtaining an injunction against him restraining him from further defamation. If he breaches this he will go to jail.
Greg was a friend of mine and I put a lot of time, effort and money into helping him, both with his health problems and his campaigning. CLEAR also funded him on one of his trips to the USA. I greatly regret that he turned against me but I count him as a victim in this as well. He was misled and manipulated by Chris Bovey who is the real villain behind all of this. Bovey is a liar and a bully, not to say Europe’s biggest dealer in highly toxic synthetic cannabinoids. He will use and abuse anyone to achieve his own ends. Justice will not be achieved until he too has been called to account.
Peter Reynolds 