Posts Tagged ‘law’
The LCA Leadership Election
The ballot papers have been mailed to members today. The candidates are Stuart Warwick and myself. Voting closes a week today. The result will be announced shortly afterwards.
Peter Reynolds
Dear LCA member,
I am seeking election as leader of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance.
I have been campaigning for an end to the prohibition of cannabis for more than 30 years.
If elected, I can promise you radical change in the way that LCA goes about its business. We will launch a new campaign based around the theme: REFORM, REGULATE and REALISE.
That is REFORM the law to end prohibition, REGULATE production and supply based on facts and evidence and REALISE the huge benefits of the plant both as medicine and as a £10 billion net contribution to the economy.
This will be a tightly focused campaign aiming for the urgent availability of cannabis for those who need it as medicine and a properly regulated supply chain for the millions of British citizens who use it recreationally. That means we will take the business out of the hands of criminals, allow commercial growers to produce the plant under properly regulated conditions and permit small scale personal cultivation of up to six plants.
We will advocate sales of cannabis through licensed outlets such as tobacconists and/or coffee shops to adults only. It would remain a criminal offence to supply cannabis to under 18s. We accept that cannabis should be taxed, partly to cover the costs of the regulatory system and a health advisory service but also so that the entire country will benefit from bringing this huge market out of the black economy. Based on research by the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit and the Transform Drug Policy Foundation we estimate that with reductions in law enforcement costs and new tax revenue, there will be a net contribution of approx £10 billion to the UK exchequer.
We will not be diverted by peripheral issues such as the many uses for industrial hemp, although we will be glad to see progress in that area. We will run a campaign focused on achieving practical change, not promoting a philosophy. That means that our main concern will be to educate and influence MPs and get our message across in the media. MPs are the only people who can change the law and it is through the media that we can influence voter opinion so we will deal with them on their terms, in Westminster, in newspapers and television studios. We will bring a new professionalism to this issue and demand the attention and respect that our proposals deserve.
The prohibition of cannabis is unjust, undemocratic and immoral. Most cannabis users are reasonable, responsible and respectable people and I will demand our right to be heard and treated fairly.
I shall stand for parliament in every by-election and in the next general election on this single issue. Being realistic, we do not expect to win a seat but we will put cannabis back on the political agenda and we will be taken seriously. No longer will we allow the Daily Mail or other media to publish lies and propaganda uinchallenged. No longer will we allow prohibitionists like Debra Bell and Peter Hitchens to misinform and promote scare stories without any balance.
I want to transform the LCA into a professional, effective campaign that will achieve results. I believe that I am the right man for this job. Please vote for me. Vote to REFORM, REGULATE and REALISE.
My website at http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk contains a wealth of information about cannabis and many articles that I have written on the subject. If you want more detailed information about me and what I stand for, that is the place to look.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Peter Reynolds
Stuart Warwick
Dear Member,
As one of the candidates seeking election for leadership of the LCA, I’ve been asked to write a short letter outlining my plans for the direction and actions I’d like to see the LCA take.
As Leader I would not seek to limit our campaign to the medical and recreational issues only (although I believe this should be our focus) but use the plethora of other applications that cannabis has in industry to gain support from as wide a demographic as possible.
I intend to campaign for legalisation, regulation & taxation.
Legalisation, done properly would remove the cannabis market from the hands of criminals and terrorists and open it up to legitimate businesses & entrepreneurs, giving the substantial profit back to society.
Regulation will help prevent dangerous contamination, ensure good quality and be more effective at keeping it out of the hands of children.
Taxation to put some of the profit back into the country – everyone benefits.
I think licensed outlets and growers is what we should be aiming to achieve. Licensing should cover not only the supply of cannabis but should also cover growing set-ups to ensure electrical and fire safety as this is a known hazard with some badly fitted installations. This would allow local growers to provide more variety in outlets, allowing users to clearly identify the strain that suits their needs the best.
Licenses should be available to cover a wide range of grow sizes to encourage both local and national business opportunities.
I think fact-based policy is a must, with genuinely unbiased research. To base policy purely on knee jerk emotional and moral arguments while ignoring scientific research is unjust and unproductive.
We know there are people in power who understand this but are forced to repeat the same prohibition mantra.
We need to let people know that if they decide to make a stand against prohibition we will be there to back them up. They will not want to make a move unless they know that when they do, they are not left hanging, We just have to give them the nod and be ready when they do.
By standing for elections, I hope to challenge not only my local MP’s and the other candidates but also policy on a national level. As leader of the LCA I hope to unite all of the voices in our community to achieve just that.
I have 2 sites that I have used to promote my ideas so far. Feel free to visit them, although there are some very early attempts on there, so quality isn’t always great, sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/user/NovictimNocrime08
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hunar-for-Prime-Minister/238421977309
Thanks for your time – , this wasn’t as easy to write as I thought it would be!
Regards
Stuart Warwick.
Cannabis Law Breakthrough
Celebration
Yesterday I revealed how Jim “Pinky” Starr has managed to obtain legal medicinal cannabis in Britain. See here. I’ve been asked to clarify whether the method set out in my article applies throughout Europe.
I’m not a lawyer. I believe that this information is correct but don’t blame me if James Brokenshire decides he’s going to ride roughshod over justice and European law!
All I know is that (with due respect to my friends with genuine illness), if I could develop the right aches and pains, I’d be straight over to Holland!
As I understand it, Ireland is now the only EU country where this wouldn’t work. However, that won’t last long. The reason that the procedure set out works is because of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area#EU_member_states_with_opt-outs
So, the only remaining problem is actually enabling UK doctors to prescribe medicinal herbal cannabis and developing a local supply chain. It seems to me that as we’re all part of the EU this is going to be impossible to stop.
I think that the breakthrough I’ve been campaigning for since the late 1970s has finally happened!
The Drugs Debate
It won’t go away will it? It seems like at least once a month now some new high profile figure comes out against prohibition. The latest, Sir Ian Gilmore, outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, is hot on the heels of Nicholas Green QC, chairman of the Bar Council in July and three eminent co-authors in The Lancet in May. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have also criticised government for failing to implement an evidence-based drugs policy and instead giving more weight to opinion.
Meanwhile the Humpty Dumpties at the Home Office keep on building their big walls, refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to care. Their response is no, no, no, out of the question, no and no again. In fact, I don’t think the ministers even think about it at all. They just replay the same old no, no and no again as written by some civil servant, probably in the days of the golf ball typewriter. Remember those?
It won’t go away though. I first submitted a report to the Home Affairs Committee on the cannabis laws in 1978. It was called “An Unaffordable Prejudice”. I’ve been giving them the facts and the evidence ever since and so have hundreds of other individuals and organisations. I’m in direct correspondence with the Home Office at the moment. I’ve received one three page response and replied with four. That’s how long it takes to get a dialogue going with our “responsive” government. I started in May, immediately after my new MP was elected, and it takes a good three months to get anywhere – or perhaps I mean nowhere. Still, I expect it was worse in the USSR.
It won’t go away. Aside from the Home Office the only people in favour of our current drugs policy are the drug dealers and the Taliban. They certainly don’t want things to change.
The Home Office can’t even get its story straight. Today its latest pearls are: “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This is nothing short of crass stupidity and irresponsible misinformation. Lumping in cannabis with heroin and cocaine is simply ridiculous. Describing cannabis as “extremely harmful” is in direct contradiction to every one of the Home Office’s own scientific experts. These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our children, the vulnerable and the uneducated. They should be ashamed of themselves.
When Proposition 19 passes on 2nd November (see here), the world will sit up and take notice. Even Humpty Dumpty will have to engage his brain then because when 37 million Californians get the right to enjoy God’s herb without interference, well it ain’t gonna stop there. If for no other reason than that our avaricious politicians will soon put aside their “principles” when they realise the oodles of cash and brownie points they’re missing out on. California reckons it will create up to 110,000 new jobs, £1.4 billion in new tax revenue and a saving of $200 million in law enforcement costs. When Humpty Dumpty takes off his blindfold of prejudice, ignorance and propaganda he’ll soon be gagging for the cash.
There are a million quotes from world leaders, politicians, doctors, scientists and “experts” of all sorts stating how ridiculous and self-defeating current drugs policy is. It never seems to make any difference though. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both called for change many times but once they get into power what happens? However, just to get right up the nose of Humpty Dumpty (that’s right, snort it up there), here’s what one very, very senior civil servant said just two years ago:
“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”
Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit. 13-08-08
It won’t go away. Just Say No has become Just Say Now and the slimy dissembling oiks who insist on running our lives (and ruining many) will soon be in retreat. It won’t go away.
Why Are Withheld Numbers Allowed?
It's Me!
Recently I started to receive a series of silent telephone calls. Sometimes the caller would ring off as soon as I answered. On other occasions it would be some time before my line cleared. It’s happened to me before as it has to most of us. What makes me angry though is when you dial 1471 and find out that the caller was from a withheld number.
At one time I’d have assumed – no, correction – I’d have known that it was a deranged ex-girlfriend but not any more. I’ve cleared all that sort of dross out of my life. Now it could be one of those dreadful automated telemarketing computers which all sorts of otherwise reputable companies seem to think are an acceptable business tool. I don’t. I think they’re pretty much akin to an offensive weapon.
But why, oh why are withheld numbers allowed at all?
What possible reason or excuse can there be for allowing anyone to make anonymous telephone calls? We have the technology. Caller ID is now virtually universal. What possible justification can there be for anyone to hide the number they’re calling from? If they’re initiating the communication, whoever they are, why should they be able to hide their identity?
So I thought I’d take advantage of BT’s “Anonymous Caller Rejection” service. Now, I’m probably going to have to cancel it because so many people are having difficulty getting through to me.
First it was my electricity supplier. Then it was a government department that I was doing some writing for. Then it was my MP’s secretary who comes from the doctors’ receptionists charm school and was quite affronted, told me off even, that my phone won’t accept anonymous calls.
Sorry, Wrong Number!
Just what is it that makes these (mostly) rational people and organisations think it is acceptable to contact me anonymously? Would they send me anonymous letters or emails or arrive at my door and refuse to identify themselves?
No, of course they wouldn’t. It would be entirely wrong and it is entirely wrong to use anonymous or withheld telephone numbers too.
Generally I’m opposed to laws. We have far too many already but in this instance we should legislate. It’s ridiculous, deceptive, dishonest and unnecessary yet many of our biggest organisations and institutions do it as matter of course.
It’s unacceptable and it should be stopped. Ban withheld numbers now!
Cameron Stumbles Over Kerb Crawlers
Oh dear! Here comes the first knee-kerk reaction. Next thing we’ll be hanging and flogging them. The law against kerb crawling is of very dubious value or common sense anyway. It’s the oldest profession. Men want to pay women for sex and women want to sell sex. It’s been going on since time began and silly, pointless little laws aren’t going to change it.
Can I Put You Down As A Researcher?
Fair enough, stop drivers kerb crawling in residential streets and harrassing your daughters but if you don’t pair such laws with legalised brothels or designated red light districts you are just making the problem worse.
I understand David Cameron’s desire to want to do something to declare his horror at the Bradford murders but I thought we were supposed to be past this sort of politicking now? I thought legislation was now going to based on a rational, properly researched approach to problems.
What we need to do is make it safer for women who want to work as prostitutes and call a halt to the pressures that force women into prostitution. That means some sort of regulated sex industry and the legalisation and regulation of drugs.
It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense. It means you may have to face down the self-righteous, moral crusaders so it takes a modicum of courage but I thought that’s where we are now. This is the first crack in the veneer. Let’s hope it’s quickly mended.
Ryanair Plumbs New Depths
I see that the deeply unpleasant and sleazy Michael O’Leary is refusing to comply with the EU law that requires him to provide his passengers with accommodation and food when they’re delayed.
I’ve never travelled in one of his cattle trucks but based on my one and only experience of Easyjet, which is supposed to be about the same, then I’d rather walk or stay at home.
Not Fit For Purpose
In normal circumstances I’d be supporting anyone who wanted to defy the EU but in O’Leary’s case I’ll make an exception.
Obnoxious, ignorant, self-important, oafish – no, they don’t quite sum him up. I tell you what, blatant and clear intent to defy the law that governs his business makes him unfit to hold an operator’s licence.
He should be banned from running an airline.
MPs Evading Justice
So are we supposed to be surprised that Gordon Brown is still clinging by his fingernails to the architrave at the door of number 10? They couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery, an orgy in an whorehouse or a coup in the Labour Party. Why? Because they all have nothing but their own interests at heart. Their last year in office, their pensions, their resettlement grants. These are not men. They are manipulative, morally microscopic mice.
Phwooaar! Gerrumorrf darlin'!
Plod PR, the go-getting communications agency, wholly owned by the police with exclusively the police as clients summoned all its collective intelligence and wisdom to determine that last Friday, the day after the European and local elections would be a busy news day, a perfect occasion to bury their cowardly, disgraceful announcement that MPs will not be prosecuted.
In fact, the expenses scandal has now morphed into an excuse for poor performance in the elections. This is a triumph of misinformation over truth. Over the weekend, we were asked to sympathise over the “assault on MPs about their expenses”. If what has happened has constitued assault then my feeling is that it’s time for some GBH with intent.
Everything has now been re-geared to enable them all to get away with it. Perhaps even more worrying is that this marks a new development in the politicisation of the police. Increasingly the police are being used to support and enforce the whim of government, irrespective of the law or justice.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance is still chasing down MPs (see here) but what has happened to the Telegraph? Have they had a visit in the middle of the night from the police or have big, fat, brown envelopes been distributed around Telegraph Towers – or both?
Three Questions
1. Why do we need an enquiry into the policing of demonstrations when all we are asking for is that all those involved should obey the law?
2. Why were any files about Hillsborough secret in the first place?
3. Can you think of a more inappropriate person to be posting anything on YouTube than Alistair Darling?
Peter Reynolds 