Posts Tagged ‘government’
Legalise Cannabis Alliance Votes To Return To Politics
Last week the LCA announced the result of its membership ballot – that it would re-register as a political party and elect a leader.
Stuart Warwick
Two candidates are standing for the leadership: Stuart Warwick and myself. Voting will close on 14th February 2011 and the result will be announced a few days later.
At a meeting last Sunday, a new management committee was formed consisting of:
Don Barnard, PR & Political Liaison
Alun Buffry, Treasurer & Coordinator
Mark Palmer, IT & Media Development
Peter Reynolds, Speaker
Janice Wells, Secretary
Two official spokespersons were appointed:
Chris Baldwin
Stuart Warwick
Alun Buffry, co-founder of the LCA, said:
“In 2006, LCA members voted to de-register as a political party in the mistaken belief that the Liberal Democrats and Greens would take up the complex issues surrounding the cannabis plant. Sadly that did not happen. Now, LCA members have voted to re-register as a political party. The LCA will once again offer voters a platform to register their discontent over the unjust prosecution of victimless users of cannabis.”
Don Barnard added:
“I am over the moon that the membership has voted to get politically active again. I look forward to raising concerns about the dubious reasons for complete prohibition of the cannabis plant with government and parliamentarians.”
For myself, I am excited to be involved in the management committee and the leadership election. Whatever the outcome, I will do my utmost to represent the LCA, its members and all cannabis users to the best of my ability. It is time that the discrimination against millions of British citizens who choose to use cannabis was put back on the political agenda. No longer can the misinformation and false propaganda put out by government ministers go unchallenged.
Back To The Future Of The NHS
I have grave concerns about the government’s NHS reforms. I feel like it’s Groundhog Day.
I was deeply involved in the last major health service reforms back in the 1990s. I am hearing exactly the same ideas, phrases and promises as we heard then. Haven’t we done this all before?
When the “internal market” was introduced and the first NHS Trusts were “founded”, the idea of marketing was introduced to the NHS for the first time. I saw the opportunity, organised a conference at the QEII conference centre and built a nice business, thank you very much, for several years as an expert in the field. I was an advisor to several health authorities and a number of the new NHS trusts. I undertook marketing and communications audits, ran training courses and I made something of a specialty of designing, writing and producing annual reports. I learned a lot and I felt I contributed a lot. Why is it all being done again?
Marketing is a perfect description of the way the health service should work. It is the management process responsible for anticipating, identifying and satisfying customer needs efficiently. The 1990s NHS model was that “purchasers”, health authorities and GP fundholders, would buy services from “providers”, hospitals and community health services. “Purchasing” was later renamed “commissioning” to reflect how complex the task is. It’s about understanding what services are required and making complex choices as well as actually contracting for them.
Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) were always a redundant tier of bureaucracy in my view. District Health Authorities (DHAs) were to be the principal commissioners but the plan was that GP fundholders would eventually take over most of it with DHAs becoming centres of expertise rather than administration. Then there was a rather messy fudge between GPs and community health services and we ended up with Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).
There is a huge amount of expertise required in commissioning. The complexity of the tasks involved – understanding, assessing, testing, planning, choosing, contracting and much more, is enormous. GPs will have to buy in that expertise which will build a bureaucracy which we will call – what? We will have gone round in a circle.
One of the biggest mistakes made about the NHS is the endless stream of attacks on managers. Almost all the problems that the NHS has and that people complain about are management problems. NHS managers have a hugely demanding and thankless task for which they are regularly pilloried and censured. They are, actually, crucial to an effective NHS, just as much as the clinicians.
So now we are to have “Foundation Trusts” and GP commissioning. It is the same thing, yet again, under a slightly different name. The NHS is not broken. It is, in fact, greatly improved. It doesn’t need fixing.
We do not need more reform. We need some adjustments. There have been great achievements on waiting times. Now, we need to shift the emphasis towards outcomes. We need targets on quality rather than quantity. It’s a tweak rather than a revolution.
Cannabis Embarrassment At The Home Office
The re-scheduling of Sativex, the cannabis tincture marketed by GW Pharmaceuticals is causing huge embarrassment at the Home Office.
Everybody’s been able to go along with the white lie up to now that Sativex is some sort of highly complex, super scientific, super medicine containing cannabinoids. True enough, GW Pharma has put millions into development and testing in order to jump through the hoops the government has demanded. At the end of the day though, all Sativex consists of is a tincture, an alcohol extract of herbal cannabis. It’s made simply by gently heating a blend of herbal cannabis in ethanol and then adding a little peppermint oil to taste.
An Honourable Man?
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved Sativex for the treatment of muscle spasticity in MS. I understand that an approval for the treatment of cancer pain is expected shortly. The problem for the Home Office is that Sativex now has to be re-scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Cannabis is presently in schedule one as having no medicinal value. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recommended this week that Sativex be in schedule four, alongside a variety of minor tranquilisers. However, as the ACMD says, “it will not be appropriate to refer to “Sativex”, which is a proprietary name, in any amendment to the misuse of drugs regulations, and that a suitable description of the relevant component(s) of “Sativex” will have to be scheduled.”
This is going to be tough for James Brokenshire to face up to. GW specifies that Sativex contains approximately equal proportions of THC and CBD but that’s not the whole truth. It also contains as many as 400 other chemical compounds which occur naturally in the plant including at least 85 cannabinoids (nobody is exactly sure how many cannabinoids there are or their effects). You see there’s not really any other accurate way of describing Sativex except to call it cannabis. So how can Mr Brokenshire possibly move it to schedule four? He endlessly repeats the propaganda that “there are no medicinal benefits in cannabis”.
Either Mr Brokenshire has to come clean and accept that his past position was incorrect or he has to promote some further deception.
I trust he will prove to be an honourable man.
Breakthrough In The Drugs Debate!
Bob Ainsworth
Tomorrow, Bob Ainsworth MP, former Home Office drugs minister and Secretary of State for Defence, will call for the legalisation and regulation of drugs. He is to lead a Parliamentary debate in Westminster Hall, at 2.30pm on Thursday 16th December 2010.
Great credit for this must go to the inestimable Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which has led the fight against prohibition. This is an extraordinary breakthrough. The news literally brought tears to my eyes. We have fought so long for such progress.
Mr Ainsworth said;
“I have just been reading the Coalition Government’s new Drugs Strategy. It is described by the Home Secretary as fundamentally different to what has gone before; it is not. To the extent that it is different, it is potentially harmful because it retreats from the principle of harm reduction, which has been one of the main reasons for the reduction in acquisitive crime in recent years.
However, prohibition has failed to protect us. Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit. We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children. We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists.
As drugs minister in the Home Office I saw how prohibition fails to reduce the harm that drugs cause in the UK, fuelling burglaries, gifting the trade to gangsters and increasing HIV infections. My experience as Defence Secretary, with specific responsibilities in Afghanistan, showed to me that the war on drugs creates the very conditions that perpetuate the illegal trade, while undermining international development and security.
My departure from the front benches gives me the freedom to express my long held view that, whilst it was put in place with the best of intentions, the war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster.
Politicians and the media need to engage in a genuine and grown up debate about alternatives to prohibition, so that we can build a consensus based on delivering the best outcomes for our children and communities. I call on those on all sides of the debate to support an independent, evidence-based review, exploring all policy options, including: further resourcing the war on drugs, decriminalising the possession of drugs, and legally regulating their production and supply.
One way to do this would be an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act in line with the 2002 Home Affairs Select Committee finding – which included David Cameron – for the government to explore alternatives to prohibition, including legal regulation.
The re-legalisation of alcohol in the US after thirteen years of Prohibition was not surrender. It was a pragmatic move based on the government’s need to retake control of the illegal trade from violent gangsters. After 50 years of global drug prohibition it is time for governments throughout the world to repeat this shift with currently illegal drugs.”
Peter Lilley MP, former Conservative Party Deputy Leader said;
“The current approach to drugs has been an expensive failure, and for the sake of everyone, and the young in particular, it is time for all politicians to stop using the issue as a political football. I have long advocated breaking the link between soft and hard drugs – by legalising cannabis while continuing to prohibit hard drugs. But I support Bob Ainsworth’s sensible call for a proper, evidence based review, comparing the pros and cons of the current prohibitionist approach with all the alternatives, including wider decriminalisation, and legal regulation.”
Tom Brake MP, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Backbench Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities said;
“Liberal Democrats have long called for a science-based approach to our drugs problem. So it is without hesitation that I support Bob Ainsworth’s appeal to end party political point-scoring, and explore sensitively all the options, through an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act.”
Labour’s Paul Flynn MP, Founder Council Member of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register said;
“This could be a turning point in the failing UK ‘war on drugs.’ Bob Ainsworth is the persuasive, respected voice of the many whose views have been silenced by the demands of ministerial office. Every open rational debate concludes that the UK’s harsh drugs prohibition has delivered the worst outcomes in Europe – deaths, drug crime and billions of pounds wasted.”
Vile Police Website Reveals Violent Conspiracy
The disgusting Inspector Gadget website is at it again. Go take a look if you want your eyes opened to the corrupt, barely literate, violence-obsessed, rabid scum that masquerades as our police force. They are salivating in delight at their frenzy of brutality on Thursday and eagerly anticipating more opportunities to beat up our children next week.
I support the real police. There are evil, subversive forces hiding behind and amongst the students. Those who are violent and only trying to ferment anarchy need to be stopped but they are on both sides. There are far too many of them wearing a police uniform and they deserve the most severe punishment of all.
It is outrageous that they are allowed to commune, plot and scheme with each other like this. They are paid not to have opinions like these and to stay calm and neutral. They are incapable of doing the job. Inspector Gadget should be closed down. Any officer who participates in it is not fit to hold the Queen’s warrant.
These are a selection of comments made by those who we pay to protect our children:
“I don’t think you can hurt a student by hitting them on the head.” Posted by “Fee”
“Good point, get chainsaws and cut their legs off then. That will slow them down a bit.” Posted by Taff Taff
“Shields advance… Fix bayonets. Charge…..Good luck troops.” Posted by BeePee
“Good cavalry charge at that protest, the only thing missing were the pig sticklers used in days of Yore.” Posted by Bodrules
“Time to get hard and nasty!” Posted by Ranter
“A few well placed live rounds and the ‘protest’ would stop in an instant.” Posted by ExTrafficBiker
See more of this disgusting behaviour here.
And this, the Taser equivalent of a claymore mine, is the sort of weapon that the Inspector and his cronies want for next time:
“absofuckinglutely ideal for this situation” Posted by Taff Taff
“I WANT THESE. SWEEEEET.” Posted by Goinwibblebobby
Wake up Britain! This is the mindset of the overpaid, mindless thugs and sadists that are supposed to be protecting our children.
This is the consequence of a government that hides in its ivory towers, refuses to engage with the people, conspires with the media to silence dissent and is a betrayal of everything that democracy stands for. And I speak as a Tory!
UK Drug Strategy 2010 – A Plan To Fail
Mother Knows Best
Gone are the days when central Government tells communities and the public what to do.
Rt. Hon. Theresa May, MP, Home Secretary, December 2010
A slim volume of treacle-like and turgid social worker-speak shot through with a few strands of sharp hypocrisy. See here.
A disappointment? Not really, it’s pretty much what I expected – an authoritarian, moralistic smokescreen behind which the government will do what it wants with no regard whatsoever for the views or the welfare of the people. It stinks.
It claims to be radical in that it turns away from reducing the harms caused by drugs and instead aims to force abstinence. In other words, do as we say or suffer the consequences. It is, in fact, a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. It seems that the British government no longer cares about the harm caused by drugs. All it cares about is that you STOP! This is the ultimate exposition of Nancy Reagan’s discredited “Just Say No” campaign because it really is “just” say “no” – no other option exists. This from a government that advocates giving people methadone to “treat” cannabis use. Can you believe it? That isn’t medieval. It’s prehistoric – or perhaps better described as mid 20th century, a sort of Dr Mengele method.
I give Ms May credit for one thing. She mentions alcohol alongside drugs in the first sentence of her foreword. That is progress but from then on there is little of any value. Nothing that you couldn’t have copied from any out of date A level textbook on social work.
The laughable assertion quoted above that the government doesn’t tell us what to do is just absurd. Never has there been a more hard line approach to the drugs issue. See Edwin Stratton’s article in The Guardian here which reveals just how draconian, anti-civil liberties and severe this government is.
In the penultimate paragraph of her foreword, Ms May acknowledges that there were calls during consultation on the strategy for “liberalisation and decriminalisation”. She dismisses these as not “the answer” but fails entirely to consider the enormous harm caused and crime created by existing policies. I will be making Freedom Of Information requests to determine just how much notice was taken of the consultation.
There is a complete failure to understand or consider the harms of prohibition. Britain now stands as one of the most backward and restrictive countries in the world when it comes to drug policy. We now rub shoulders with those countries that execute people for drug possession. There is no civilised country in the world with a more repressive drugs policy than Britain.
Broken Britain
Emphasis is given to the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners. I support this move. Hopefully, these elected officials, being closer to reality and not ensconsed in Whitehall’s ivory towers, will mitigate some of the damage that this strategy could cause. They will have the impossible job of trying to implement these ideas and will surely give Ms May and her protege James “Broken Britain” Brokenshire some lessons in reality and common sense.
The statistics and figures quoted in the strategy are manifest nonsense. Apparently the economic and social costs of Class A drug use are £15.4 billion per annum while the equivalent figure for alcohol is £18 – 25 billion. Supposedly the total illicit drug market in Britain is worth just £4 – 6 billion per annum while the market for alcohol is £30 billion. There are just 320,000 heroin and/or crack cocaine users but tens of million that use alcohol. These figures just don’t add up. Maybe that’s part of the reason this strategy is so badly conceived and directed.
It’s only part of the reason though. The main problem is that the government’s approach is based on prejudice and an arrogant, moralistic, proselytising stance. See David Nutt’s article here on what the government would do if a completely safe alternative to ecstasy was developed. Prohibition is immoral and evil in itself. When will our politicians wake up to what most of the rest of Europe and the USA already knows?
Powerful Medicine. Gentle Pleasure.
Cannabis, the most widely used illegal drug by a factor of at least 10 barely gets a mention except in passing. This, in itself, exposes the inane content of this strategy. The government apparently intends to deal with cannabis in exactly the same way as it deals with heroin and crack. The medicinal use of cannabis, now a burgeoning industry and source of hope to people all over Europe and America isn’t even mentioned. The crass stupidity of this strategy is almost beyond belief.
So the battle lines are drawn. Every other civilised country in the world is coming to terms with the fact that the war on drugs is unwinnable, even lost. Theresa May, like some mad first world war general, is blowing her whistle and urging on millions more to go over the top into certain death, or at least misery and degradation. Her slightly fey, sweet boy, Colonel Jimmy is hiding behind her, determined to gain credit for something but definitely not doing anything worthwhile, “Crikey! Not me. I’m staying safe.”
This could be a deeply depressing day but at least now we know where we stand. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have completely turned around on the progressive and liberal ideas they have advocated in the past. Nothing is a better indicator of the integrity and intelligence of a government than its drug policy. Britain is shamed by this effort which will inevitably cause more harm, cost more money and ruin more lives.
Broken Promises. Broken Britain. Brokenshire.
Mad? Bad? Or both?
The most important principle espoused by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in the election campaign was fairness. They promised us that their government would be fair and by extension that the policies it pursued would be based on facts and evidence, not on prejudice, misinformation or distortion by vested interests.
This promise is broken and in the most crass, blatant and disgraceful fashion by the attempt to remove scientists from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Never has a more corrupt intent been revealed by a British government. Never has a minister, James Brokenshire, demonstrated his intent to misinform, deceive and lie more clearly. Dr Evan Harris, the former LibDem shadow science and health minister, explains the intricacies of this attempt to subvert the law here.
The Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 was progressive legislation in that it created the ACMD and required government to seek its expert scientific advice before criminalising the use of drugs. Because, increasingly, the government does not like the ACMD’s advice, it is now seeking to remove the Act’s requirement that there must be scientists on the council. Is it possible to conceive of a more ridiculous or corrupt idea?
In fact, the government takes no notice of the ACMD anyway. When ministers wanted to ban mephedrone earlier in the year they ordered the council to provide the advice that they wanted and banned it despite there being almost no evidence at all. More members of the ACMD then resigned and the Home Office is now trying to recruit replacements. That may be the truth of what is happening here. The government simply can’t find scientists prepared to sit on the council. I wonder why?
James Brokenshire says: “Scientific advice is absolutely critical to the government’s approach to drugs and any suggestion that we are moving away from it is absolutely not true.
This is simply a bald faced lie and self-evidently so. If scientific advice is critical, why does he wish to remove the obligation to have it available?
James Brokenshire regularly speaks untruths or dissembles on behalf of the government. The facts prove that beyond doubt and his reputation is well established. For instance, the Home Office claims that there are no medicinal benefits in herbal cannabis and that this is based on advice from the ACMD. No such advice has ever been given. Furthermore, Professor Les Iversen, present chair of the ACMD is also a founder council member of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register (BMCR) and next week lectures on the subject “Bringing Cannabis Back into the Medicine Cabinet”
James Brokenshire is in the vanguard of this contemptible and corrupt behaviour. He may be put forward as cannon fodder by more senior ministers because the nonsense he speaks and the positions he takes are so manifestly ridiculous. When the truth is out and his shame is revealed he will easily be dismissed by Theresa May. If, as Minister for Crime Prevention, he had any real interest in preventing crime he would be resisiting this attempt to subvert the law.
European Parliament – Public Hearing On Cannabis Regulation
The European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD) has organised a public hearing on cannabis regulation at the European Parliament on 8th December 2010. See here for full details.
In March 2009, the European Commission published the “Report on Global Illicit Drug Markets 1998 – 2007” . This concludes that current policies of prohibition are failing in their main objective to reduce the demand and supply of illicit drugs. Current policies may also be a crucial factor in generating and increasing harm to individual drug users, their direct surroundings and society at large.
According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in its 2010 annual report, Europe faces new challenges posed by changes in drug supply and use. The report also highlights the increased usage of cocaine, heroin and of a record number of new synthetic drugs.
ENCOD says that prohibitionist policies have failed to tackle the issues of drugs and drug use effectively and it is time to investigate alternative approaches. European authorities must produce a thorough impact assessment of the costs of the current policy of prohibition and the economic benefits of decriminalisation and, as a start, the regulation of the cannabis market.
Victor Hamilton
It has been calculated that cannabis regulation would save billions in law enforcement costs, foster harm reduction, weaken the illegal cartels, and provide the opportunity to generate considerable income from taxes. The examples of California, Spain, The Netherlands and Portugal lead the way.
Victor Hamilton, the well known cannabis campaigner and former Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) parliamentary candidate, liaises as a UK representative with ENCOD. He has submitted the following letter to ENCOD in advance of the public hearing on the current state of cannabis in Britain.
Dear Joep,
Thank you for the invitation to attend the hearing on 8th December 2010. I am afraid that both my health and the expense involved prevent me from attending.However, as you know, ending the prohibition of cannabis and encouraging more and better use of the plant in all its forms is my main concern. Cannabis offers many benefits medicinally, recreationally, spiritually and, as hemp, in ecologically sound fuel, construction materials, paper and plastics alternatives. Prohibition of cannabis is a far greater crime than any perpetrated by those who use it. It is a scandal and a sad litany of wasted opportunity and resources.
In the UK, based on research I have done and confirmed by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit (IDMU), a legalise, regulate and tax regime could produce between £4 – 6 billion pa in new tax revenue.
For the benefit of the hearing, please allow me to update you on the present situation in Britain.
Calls For Decriminalisation
There have been calls for a relaxation of cannabis laws from a number of sources: The Bar Council, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, The Lancet, Professor Roger Pertwee, Professor David Nutt and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The new coalition government’s “Your Freedom” website was swamped with calls for legalisation.
Reaction To Propositon 19
The cannabis community was eager with anticipation for the Proposition 19 vote in California, despite a dearth of media attention. Even the BBC, obliged under its charter to provide balanced coverage, found very little time for an issue that affects at least six million Britons. Strangely, the best of the lot was The Daily Telegraph, formerly known as the most conservative paper, it told us more about what was happening than any of the others.
The result was a disappointment and reminded us how our own campaigning has suffered from internal divisions and a lack of focus. Nevertheless. legalisation seems inevitable in the US, even if only at state level, within the next few years.
Formation of British Medicinal Cannabis Register
This exciting initiative to create a database of medicinal users in Britain was announced only in November. I was honoured to be invited to sit on the BMCR council as a medicinal user representative. Other members of the council include very eminent individuals such as Baroness Meacher, the MP Paul Flynn, Matthew Atha of IDMU and Dr Malcolm Vandenburg, the pre-eminent expert witness on drugs.
The real coup though was the announcement of Professor Leslie Iversen as a council member. Professor Iversen is the government’s chief scientific advisor on drugs. Yes that’s the British government which continues to state that cannabis has “no medicinal benefits”.
Subversion of Schengen Agreement
Several British medicinal users travelled to Holland for prescriptions from a doctor believing that their medicine was then protected by the Schengen Agreement. At first the Home Office agreed but then changed its position to say that British residents are not covered. The ridiculous situation now is that any non-UK resident can bring prescribed medicinal cannabis into Britain and use it without restriction. A UK resident cannot.
Increasing Evidence Of Medicinal Benefits
There is a never ending flow of information from all around the world on the extraordinary power of cannabis as a medicine. Facebook groups, blogs and organisations such as the LCA and UKCIA keep spreading the news. Particularly strong evidence has been revealed for cannabinoids as a treatment for Alzheimer’s, head, neck, breast and prostate cancer, fibromyalgia, ADHD and migraine. The mainstream media seem only interested in scandal and scare stories. They publish news about vastly expensive new pharmaceutical products but not about cannabis cures.
Confusion At The Home Office
Understandably, the British government’s position looks increasingly absurd. The Home Office veers between describing cannabis as very harmful, harmful, dangerous, extremely dangerous and changes its story every time it is challenged.
Approval of Sativex
Sativex won welcome approval from the medicines regulator as a treatment for spasticity in MS. Despite the fact that Sativex is nothing more than a tincture of herbal cannabis, the government now maintains that “cannabis has no medicinal benefits in herbal form”. Sativex is approximately eight times the cost of herbal medicinal cannabis and many health authorities are refusing to fund it.
New UK Drug Strategy
The government is to announce a new drugs strategy in December. There is expected to be a shift in emphasis towards healthcare interventions rather than criminal sanctions but no move away from prohibition. The more liberal views expressed by both David Cameron and Nick Clegg over the last 10 years seem to have changed now they have come to power.
Joep, I hope this is helpful and informative for the hearing and for you and your colleagues.
Victor Hamilton
The Bean Counter And The Ponce. A Pair Of Hypocrites.
There is no more integrity.
This government is even more corrupt than the last. Not just widespread financial corruption amongst MPs, now ministers have abandoned all pretence at listening or consulting. Britain has become an oligarchy and both politicians and the media are complicit.
I and many other Tories were prepared to accept and defend the financial squeeze but I can no longer support this government. I could not vote Tory again given the level of betrayal and arrogance from David Cameron. As for the LibDems, they have sacrificed their integrity completely. I see nothing unfair with the present proposals for tuition fees but deplore and condemn the LibDem’s broken promises. They are ruined. Clegg is beyond, in fact, beneath redemption.
Ministers in this government have become more remote than ever before. They sit in their feather-bedded ivory towers and just ignore correspondence. This is now par for the course in the respect and courtesy that our government pays us. One can write again and again, send email reminders and never get even an acknowledgement. This is disregard so serious that it is corruption.
Clegg’s “Your Freedom” website was canned as quickly as it started. No, no, no, that gave the people far too loud a voice.
And the press are involved too. They protect and serve only their own comfort in the politics bubble. The editors of the national newspapers follow their own agenda with no regard for their readers. Normal rules of supply and demand do not apply. They have so much power that most only know what they are given. They distort the truth as it suits them. Only what serves them gets published.
We have some recourse with the BBC. It is obliged to provide balance but the complaints system is worse than useless and the director-general receives a ludicrous bribe of £838,000 per annum.
Over just the last 12 months there have been massive demonstrations in London where tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets but we do not hear of them. It is entirely true that were it not for the violence we would never have heard of the 52,000 students that marched on Millbank earlier this month. The blood spilled and the damage caused is on the hands of the media. They are a corrupt and pernicious influence on our society. Much as I believe in smaller government, the media now have too much power. Effective regulation is needed.
The Tory promise never to allow more power to slip to Brussels has also been broken and Cameron is exposed as nothing more than a procedural clerk. All his bold, inspirational philosophy of freedom and fairness is gone. I have never seen such hostility from those who were previously firm Tory supporters.
This corrupt and self-serving government is going down the pan.
The British Medicinal Cannabis Register And Your Security
Apart from the misinformation and propaganda of government, there are two reasons why cannabis law reformers have met with little success in Britain.
The first is a lack of factual information about who uses cannabis, how and for what reasons. The second is a terrible record of disunity, squabbling and petty power games amongst campaigners.
My fervent hope is that the creation of the British Medicinal Cannabis Register (BMCR) will help to solve the first, at least for medicinal users. The second though may prove more difficult.
The BMCR has attracted the endorsement of a number of eminent individuals. Council members include people whose reputation is beyond reproach as well as medicinal users who, by definition, are described as criminals. There have already been scurrilous attacks on the integrity of some council members and cowardly abuse, anonymous or in disguise, from those who have a different agenda.
Regrettably, a well known campaigner with an honourable and courageous record in assisting medicinal users, has resigned from the council over concerns about data security. While he is a man of great integrity, the web site with which he is associated has hosted a series of paranoid and scaremongering attacks on the BMCR. The site is well known as a forum for cannabis growers who clearly have good reason to be concerned about their security.
The BMCR issued the following guidance:
Your Security
The purpose of the BMCR is to build a database of factual information. For that data to have any value it must be validated. Cannabis remains illegal in Britain so there will always be some danger in contributing to any website or source of information, even if you do so anonymously or under a pseudonym.
After careful consideration the BMCR has concluded that the minimum requirement for data to be validated is a name, a part post code and a verifiable email address. The name and postcode cannot be verified so there is nothing to stop you using an alias.
Clearly, the information about post code, condition(s) and method(s) of use is only of any value if it is truthful. All data will be stored on encrypted servers and/or storage devices and will not be released to anyone voluntarily. However, you must decide for yourself the balance between providing information and your own security.
Ultimately, medicinal users must decide for themselves whether they want to stand up and be counted or not. Personally, I put my name loud and proud alongside the BMCR and I will defend and keep confidential any information entrusted to me to the ultimate. I know the same goes for all those involved.
The BMCR website is at www.bmcr.org.uk.
Peter Reynolds 