Posts Tagged ‘MP’
“War On Drugs Has Failed, Say Former Heads Of MI5, CPS And BBC”, The Daily Telegraph, 21st March 2011
The “war on drugs” has failed and should be abandoned in favour of evidence-based policies that treat addiction as a health problem, according to prominent public figures including former heads of MI5 and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Drug availability and use has increased with up to 250 million people worldwide using narcotics such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin
Leading peers – including prominent Tories – say that despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible.
Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country.
The increasing use of the most harmful drugs such as heroin has also led to “enormous health problems”, according to the group.
The MPs and members of the House of Lords, who have formed a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, are calling for new policies to be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence.
It could lead to calls for the British government to decriminalise drugs, or at least for the police and Crown Prosecution Service not to jail people for possession of small amounts of banned substances.
Their intervention could receive a sympathetic audience in Whitehall, where ministers and civil servants are trying to cut the numbers and cost of the prison population. The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, has already announced plans to help offenders kick drug habits rather than keeping them behind bars.
The former Labour government changed its mind repeatedly on the risks posed by cannabis use and was criticised for sacking its chief drug adviser, Prof David Nutt, when he claimed that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
The chairman of the new group, Baroness Meacher – who is also chairman of an NHS trust – told The Daily Telegraph: “Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities.
“In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.
“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of young people’s drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”
Lord Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989, said: “I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.
“This is an important issue, which I have thought about for many years. But I still don’t know what the right answer is – I have joined the APPG in the hope that it may help us to find the right answer.”
Other high-profile figures in the group include Baroness Manningham-Buller, who served as Director General of MI5, the security service, between 2002 and 2007; Lord Birt, the former Director-General of the BBC who went on to become a “blue-sky thinker” for Tony Blair; Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, until recently the Director of Public Prosecutions; and Lord Walton of Detchant, a former president of the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council.
Current MPs on the group include Peter Bottomley, who served as a junior minister under Margaret Thatcher; Mike Weatherley, the newly elected Tory MP for Hove and Portslade; and Julian Huppert, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge.
The group’s formation coincides with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which paved the way for a war on drugs by describing addiction as a “serious evil”, attempting to limit production for medicinal and scientific uses only, and coordinating international action against traffickers.
The peers and MPs say that despite governments “pouring vast resources” into the attempt to control drug markets, availability and use has increased, with up to 250 million people worldwide using narcotics such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin in 2008.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
They believe the trade in illegal drugs makes more than £200 billion a year for criminals and terrorists, as well as destabilising entire nations such as Afghanistan and Mexico.
As a result, the all-party group is working with the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, to review current policies and scientific evidence in order to draw up proposed new ways to deal with the problem.
Legal Opportunities For Medicinal Cannabis Users
Recent developments mean that there are new opportunities to challenge the prohibition of cannabis as medicine. Now I am not a lawyer, so these ideas should be carefully discussed with your legal advisors before you even consider pursuing any of them. I may be wrong about the correct procedure, process or terminology. I am highlighting opportunities that I have identified, based on my personal experience and knowledge. Qualified legal advice is essential.
Disingenuous
The British government’s current position on medicinal cannabis is absurd and irrational. As I understand it, those are exactly the criteria for which the process of judicial review is intended. That is one route. Another, more risky opportunity arises if you are facing prosecution or have been convicted of an offence of possession, cultivation or production. There are ideas here which you may want to consider as a defence or an appeal. However, please be very careful. If things go wrong, advancing such arguments might result in a heavier sentence, such is the cruel, oppressive and iniquitous intent of current government policy.
Dishonest
The Home Office is simply dishonest in its current stance saying that there “are no medicinal benefits” from cannabis. James Brokenshire, the drugs minister, cannot hide behind a lack of knowledge so he looks either more stupid or dishonest every day. David Cameron made the most dreadful, disingenuous comment about medicinal use in his Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview last week. See here. He said “That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that.” That, of course, is absolute rot and Cameron should be ashamed of himself for such misinformation.
Obtain A Doctor’s Prescription For Medicinal Cannabis
There is nothing to prevent your British doctor from prescribing medicinal cannabis for you if he/she believes it is appropriate. Bedrocan BV is the official contractor to the Dutch government for the production of medicinal cannabis. Go to its website here and you will discover it has a range of products offering different proportions of cannabinoids and terpenoids for different conditions. Prescribing information is available for your doctor in exactly the same way as any other drug. All he/she has to do is select the product and write out a prescription in the normal way. Your doctor can’t get in trouble for this. There is nothing improper or unethical about it, but it is, of course, your doctor’s decision whether to do so or not.
If your doctor isn’t prepared to help, the next best thing is to go to a doctor in Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain or Italy, all countries where medicinal cannabis is regularly prescribed. In theory, you should be able to see a doctor in another EU country under reciprocal healthcare arrangements but if you can afford it, it may be simpler to go privately.
Another option is to go to one of the 15 US states that permit medical marijuana and obtain a doctor’s recommendation.
Once you have your prescription, you need to apply to the Home Office for a personal import licence to bring your medicine in from Holland. The licensing section on the Home Office website is here. If you obtain a licence you will also need to go through a similar process with the Dutch Bureau voor Medicinale Cannabis to obtain an export licence. The correct section of its website is here.
Of course, the reality is that the Home Office is not going to grant you a licence. You can then pursue the matter through your MP who should make representations to the minister on your behalf. You are then at the point to make an application for judical review of the Home Office’s decision.
Challenge The Government’s Interpretation Of The Schengen Agreement
The Schengen Agreement provides protection for travellers to carry their medicine with them within the EU. The crucial factor is your country of residence. See here for detailed information. Although there is no precise definition of residency, if you are resident in an EU country where medicinal cannabis is permitted, then you may bring your medicine into Britain and, believe it or not, there is no restriction on your use of it. You would be perfectly entitled to sit on the steps of Scotland Yard or even the Home Office’s Marsham Street HQ and smoke a spliff. However, if you are a UK resident, even if you have obtained your medicine on prescription abroad, you are not protected. This is clearly discriminatory under EU law and could be challenged in court. I’m not certain whether you would apply to a British court or to the European court but your solicitor would advise you on this.
Defence Or Appeal On The Grounds Of Medical Necessity
The Appeal Court disallowed a defence of medical necessity back in 2005. A petition to the House Of Lords Judicial Committee and to the European Court Of Human Rights was dismissed without any reasons given. I understand that the Appeal Court’s reasoning was that there were no proven medicinal benefits of cannabis. However, things have changed enormously since then. The MHRA approval of Sativex and the Home Office’s issue of a general licence for it are conclusive proof of medicinal value. Whatever misinformation the Home Office may promote, expert evidence would prove that Sativex is pharmacologically identical to, for instance, one of the Bedrocan products. There is also now a vast resource of peer-reviewed clinical evidence of medicinal benefits.
There is an horrendously improper judgement (R -v- David King, St Albans Crown Court), where a medicinal user was not allowed even to mention medicinal reasons to a jury on pain of imprisonment for contempt. Your lawyers would need to study this carefully. However, it is so clearly unjust that I do not believe it could be sustained.
Re-Scheduling Of Sativex
Sativex is currently a schedule 1 controlled drug which means it has no medicinal value. As mentioned earlier, the Home Office has dealt with this temporarily by issuing a general licence for it. However, it needs to be re-scheduled and the Advisory Council On the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has recommended that it be placed in schedule 4. See here for the full story.
Sativex cannot be re-scheduled under its brand name and the only pharmacologically accurate way of describing it is cannabis. The ACMD left a possible escape route for the Home Office by saying that its “active” ingredients would have to be specified. GW Pharma, the makers of Sativex would say that this means an extract of THC and CBD. However, this is dishonest. Sativex contains all the 60-odd cannabinoids that occur naturally in the plant. There is no other way of describing it accurately than to call it cannabis. If Brokenshire and his cronies try to prolong this deception then they can be challenged by judicial review. The aim here is to ensure that the re-scheduling is accurate and so cannabis becomes a schedule 4 drug. This would then open up all opportunities for cannabis as medicine.
I have no doubt now that medicinal cannabis will be permitted in some form or another in Britain within the near future. We may need to force the government’s hand through litigation or, perhaps Brokenshire will be moved to another department and then the Home Office can “adjust” its position.
At present, it is a monstrous injustice, an evil and obscene scandal, that those who need cannabis as medicine are denied it. The way of politics is that a few years from now it may well all have changed and Brokenshire will be at the Ministry of Silly Walks or somewhere better suited to his talents. However it works out, what I care about is that those in pain and suffering get the relief they need. One day soon, Brokenshire will have to answer to his constituents and later to an even higher power. How he will justify his cruelty and negilgence I don’t really care but I know I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes on judgement day.
Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter!
Call Cameron To Account
Following the example of my comrade-in-arms, Jason “HomeGrown Outlaw” Reed, here is another letter writing campaign.
Yesterday, on YouTube, David Cameron gave a shockingly inaccurate and misleading answer to a question about cannabis. You can read the full story and watch the video here.
I have written to Mr Cameron asking that he meet me as the leader of the LCA so that I can prove to him how wrong he is. Now what is needed is for hundreds, preferably thousands of us, to write to Mr Cameron asking him to arrange that meeting.
What I would suggest is that you print out a copy of my letter and then attach it to a letter of your own.
You can download and print my letter here.
I suggest your letter goes something like this:
(Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter. That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)
Dear Mr Cameron,
I was very concerned by what you said recently on YouTube about marijuana. The leader of the LCA has written to you asking for a meeting (copy attached). He represents my interests so will you please arrange to see him?
Yours etc
Mr Cameron’s address is:
David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
If you want to take it one step further, send a copy to your MP too.
(Find out who you MP is at www.parliament.uk. Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter. That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)
Dear (insert name),
I was very concerned by what David Cameron said recently on YouTube about marijuana. The leader of the LCA has written to him asking for a meeting (copy attached). He represents my interests so please, will you ask Mr Cameron to see him?
Yours etc
Your MP’s address is:
(insert name) MP
House Of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
“New LCA” – Call For Nominations
“New LCA” is in the process of drafting its constitution and revising its aims and principles in accordance with the results of the leadership election. The immediate plans following the election are set out here.
The management committee is considering a new name which will better reflect the aims of the party. Nominations are invited from everyone.
This is not a competition and there are no prizes, guarantees or rewards. We are looking for suggestions and ideas. The committee will decide the name that it will recommend to the membership as part of the new constitution.
The main consideration is how to advance our cause, ending the prohibition of cannabis, and who we have to communicate with and persuade in order to achieve that. That means looking outwards at people who do not use cannabis and particularly at MPs, opinion formers and the media. These are the people we must influence.
We need a name and identity around which we can rally supporters but we are not the main concern. For instance, “legalise” is a word that frightens people. Our target audience thinks that it means a free for all, whereas our intention is a system of regulation based on facts and evidence which protects children and the vulnerable and maintains quality and safety standards.
“Cannabis” is a word that people are concerned about having linked to their online and Facebook profiles but it is the essence of our cause. It is difficult to see how any name could be successful without including the word. Our new campaign theme is “Reform Regulate Realise” but it needs a payoff to say clearly what it is about.
Please think about how the name will sound when you write to your MP . Will it be an immediate turn off or will it invite interest? When Jeremy Paxman talks about us on Newsnight will it be with a sneer or with some respect, that here is a serious party with a serious proposition?
Please post your ideas here as comments. I promise that every suggestion will be considered. Here are some ideas to start off with.
Cannabis Party
Cannabis Tax & Regulate Party
Cannabis Tax Party
Cannabis Law Reform Party
End Cannabis Prohibition Party
Reform Regulate Realise Party
Safer Access Party
British Cannabis Reform Party
Barclays Pays £113 Million Tax, £2800 Million Bonuses
Seeker After Truth
Congratulations to Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who has exposed the truth about the organised crime syndicate known as Barclays Bank. See here for the full story.
Far from contributing to the British economy, in 2009 the bosses of this criminal gang paid themselves nearly 25 times as much as they paid in tax on their ill gotten gains.
Barclays Boss = Liar & Cheat
Nothing better illustrates the deception, fraud and misrepresentation that this den of thieves has perpertrated on the British people. It also highlights the weakness and compromise of Dr Vince Cable, once held up as the champion of the people, now revealed as weak, ineffectual and useless in the face of Barclays’ corrupting influence. As for Cameron, his poodle and all the other cowardly members of our once honourable House of Commons, they are all two-faced, impotent and in shameful, sycophantic awe of the vast piles of shekels that the banker robbers accumulate.
PM MP
Originally Published In Homegrown Outlaw's Blog
By Jason Reed
To all that support change in current policy, I invite you to take part in: PM MP.
What is PM MP? Well, I am hosting a letter that I am encouraging as many people as possible to post one copy to the Prime Minister, and one copy to your MP. It is through weight and numbers that points are grasped and policy changed.
It is also worth sending to the Home Secretary – Theresa May, and James Brokenshire – Minister for Crime Prevention at the Home Office.
If you would like to add your name and address so as to receive a reply, all the better. If you wish to remain anonymous, then that’s also fine, but please do take the time to send just two letters to the Prime Minister and your MP at this address:
Prime Minister,
10 Downing Street,
London, SW1A 2AA
Your MP can be found here:
And your MP’s address will be:
MP’s NAME, or James Brokenshire, or The Home Secretary Theresa May
House of Commons,
London SW1A OAA
Below you can find the template letter that has been created to address the current law & policy that surrounds cannabis in Britain. It is with a great deal of thanks to the Drug Equality Alliance for directing the wording to address this issue correctly.
Please do support this; please send the letters. Fellow bloggers, please also host the letter and send forth.
Either copy & paste the below text into a letter, or I have provided downloadable links at the end of this blog post. Thank you all. Jason.
Dear
I am writing to state my view that continuing prohibition of all private interests in cannabis is not in the best interest of society or the individual. Current policy is in many regards counter-productive and a drain on the country’s resources. The administration of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is mandated to be under constant review & evidence based; it’s concern is solely to reduce social harm caused by drug misuse. I submit that there can be no justification in law for the blanket ban on accessing a substance that many persons use responsibly, and many use to experience the amelioration of symptoms caused by various medical disorders.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 seeks to regulate human action re any harmful drug, it does not provide a mandate for prohibition, indeed when one examines the obligations of the ACMD one can see that the law seeks to make arrangements for the supply of controlled drugs. The legislative aim is to control responsible human action and property interests through the regulation of the production, distribution and possession of any harmful drug; this being proportionate and targeted to address the mischief of social harm occasioned by misuse. I note that the law does not prohibit the use of cannabis at all, and this often ignored fact was Parliament’s way of opening the door to facilitate a suitable and rational regulatory structure. I place it on record that I wish the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to be used properly, and neutrally; specifically; (under Section 1) – “(2) (a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply.”
The prohibition of all private interests in cannabis & the denial of the possibility of responsible use has failed:
- The estimated expenditure of £19 billion on the judicial ‘controls’ over UK drug policy is a large sum that cannot be justified in the current fiscal climate. I do not believe it can be proven to be a valid policy even if the nation could easily afford it; it has a high price on liberty, and a paradoxical effect upon the health of all drug users – it has proved futile in almost every way, save for the government’s blind adherence to the international treaties it chooses to fetter it’s discretion to.
- There is an estimated street value of £5 billion profit going directly to gangs and cartels, and this in turn funds organised crime, human trafficking, and all manner of hard-line criminality.
- Children have easy & ready access to cannabis. Children are dealing cannabis and using cannabis with relative ease.
- There is an estimated 165 million responsible and non-problematic cannabis users worldwide. There is anything from 2 – 10 million adult users in the UK. There is no societal benefit to criminalising such a large portion of society, these are generally law-abiding persons who wish to use a substance that is comparatively safer than many drugs that government choose to exclude users of from the operation of the MoDA 1971 (despite the Act being neutral as to what drug misusers are controlled, the most harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are excluded by policy, but this is not reflected in the Act itself).
- Under prohibition, as in 1920’s America, quality control has suffered giving way to hastily harvested cannabis which acts as the modern day equivalent of the infamous Moonshine & Hooch. The UK media terms this bad product simply as “Skunk”. Cannabis is now being cut with harmful drugs, glass, metal fillings, and chemicals to give false potency, and to add weight for profit motivations.
- To criminalise personal actions that do not harm others within the confines of privately owned property is at best draconian, and at worst futile & irresponsible.
I wish to encourage the adoption of a regulatory system that provides:
- An age-check system to prevent the young and vulnerable from obtaining cannabis with the ease they currently have.
- The partial saving from the £19 billion drug enforcement budget, alongside the estimated street worth of £5 billion potentially collected from cannabis. This would be a considerable sum in aiding the country in fiscal crisis.
- Quality control that can be accorded to cannabis production and sale, thus ensuring that there are no dangerous impurities and that the correct balance of cannabinoids are present (according to the needs of the user) to minimise potential harms.
- Potency & harm reduction information can be provided to adults, ensuring education is the forefront of the regulatory model.
- A restriction on marketing and the creation of designated discreet outlets. As seen in many countries, given a place of legitimacy, the cache of cannabis is lessened in favour of responsibility.
- The freedoms and rights for non-problematic users to be respected.
I do hope that you will give this matter the urgent attention it warrants.
Yours
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.
The Politics Of Cannabis
Originally Published In ISMOKE Magazine Issue 1
Cannabis is a political issue. Make no mistake about it. The scientific, moral, medical and health arguments have all been won. What we need to do now is find a way to make change happen.
It’s in the prohibitionists’ interests to keep debating all the ins and outs and going through the evidence because it diverts from the imperative for change. We have to keep repeating the truth. We have to cut through their deception and scaremongering but above all, we have to demand action.
In the US, they’ve gone way, way past the silly and irrelevant arguments about cannabis being dangerous or harmful. We like to think that we’re smarter, a more mature democracy but so many Brits are still suckers for a Daily Mail scare story. The propaganda and bigotry still prevails here. In America they simply accept that if you abuse or misuse something it may cause you harm. They rarely even mention the psychosis theory. Even after Congresswoman Giffords’ shooting and the stories of Jared Loughner’s marijuana use, his friends were quick to step forward and say he’d stopped some time ago and actually seemed worse and more unstable without self-medicating on cannabis. More importantly than that, the US media reported what his friends said rather than hushing it up because it wasn’t sensational enough.
Peter Hitchens, the Mail On Sunday columnist wrote a disgusting rant about the shooting, blaming it all on cannabis and having nothing to do with the truth at all. Now the US media are ridiculing him about Britain’s Reefer Madness. He really is an example of the very worst in journalism. The truth means nothing to him. He is a liar and a mendacious frightener of the vulnerable, the elderly, of children and their parents. You will be interested to know that the Legalise Cannabis Alliance has drawn a line in the sand. We will no longer let such nonsense go unchallenged. A formal complaint is being made in the LCA’s name to the Press Complaints Commission. It will be the first of many. We will no longer allow the British media to distribute lies without calling them to account.
The War On Prohibition Can Be Won!
Prohibition is fundamentally immoral. It is nothing less than the unjustified oppression of a section of society. It is as pernicious and evil as racism, sexism, homophobia or any other form of prejudice. It says that, irrespective of facts, evidence, science or justice, just because we disagree with you, we will make your activity illegal. We will criminalise you, imprison you, ruin your career, endanger your family, smear you with unjustified innuendo and suspicion. We will cause you far more harm than the activity you choose ever will.
It is pretty well accepted now, worldwide, that Nixon’s war on drugs can never be won. It makes Vietnam or Afghanistan look like a little skirmish in some backwater. It has been responsible for far more death, misery and destruction than any war since Nixon first declared it. There are still those who cling to its ambitions, like our favourite preppy, baby face minister James Brokenshire But he is rather like one of those Japanese soldiers, found on some remote Pacific island, thirty years after his Emperor surrendered – still dangerous, still committed to his cause but hopelessly out of touch, in need of re-education, a very, very sad case.
The war on prohibition is now in full flow and this is a campaign that can and must be won. It is a war that has right and justice and common sense on its side. It is time that we marshall our forces, determine our strategy, plan our tactics and hold fast to our courage as we advance on the enemy. I believe that this year or next marijuana will be legalised in at least one state in America. Once the dam is broken, progress will begin to roll out all over the world.
I believe that the Legalise Cannabis Alliance is the standard around which we should rally. We are responsible, respectable, reasonable citizens and we need to unite to fight the war on prohibition.
What is vital is that the LCA communicates its messages effectively to the right people. It seems to me that one of, if not the most important audience is members of parliament. They, after all, are the only people who can actually change the law. We therefore have to play their game by their rules.
In the documentary “In Pot We Trust”, Aaron of the Marijuana Policy Project says that one man in short hair and a suit, lobbying congressmen can achieve more than hundreds marching in the street. I think he’s right.
The LCA must re-launch its campaign. We must overhaul our image, update the logo and the website. We must become conscious of our communications, control and deliver our messages with ruthless effect, use all the spin doctor tricks and techniques, just as any other political party or pressure group.
I will put on a suit and tie for the LCA because that’s what is needed to make progress with politicians, through the media and, most importantly, with the great God of public opinion.
I think we also have to consider our name. Not throw it out for the sake of something new but recognise that “Legalise” is a word that frightens people. They think it means an uncontrolled free for all, whereas what we argue for is fact and evidence based regulation. We also need to consider the word cannabis. People are frightened to have it on their Facebook profile and concerned that it may come up in a Google search when they’re applying for a new job. We have to consider these things. I would argue that instead of saying “Legalise Cannabis”, we might say “End Prohibition”.
So we do need to become much more professional about our communications and image. Anything put out in our name needs to be “on message” in every sense of the phrase – look, feel, content, style, etc. Each target audience needs to be addressed on its terms. We need an analysis and a plan for each individual MP and constituency. We need a rota of pro-active media communications. We need to enlist the help of celebrities who support our cause. This needs to be done consistently and repeatedly. We need a team of people all over the country working together with a plan to succeed.
I also believe that we should re-register as a political party and field candidates in every byelection. In fact, I would propose that we field the same candidate in every byelection and we build.the campaign and awareness over time. I don’t expect us to win a seat in parliament but I do expect us to start being taken seriously. I want to see us on Newsnight and on Question Time. When Debra Bell is asked for a quote or is interviewed about a cannabis story, I want us to be quoted as well and to be on the other side of the TV sofa facing down her mischief and misinformation.
Cannabis is a political issue. If we get our act together and get serious about the war on prohibition, get serious about achieving results, explain the facts, expose the lies, then we can prevail. We can see the truth revealed. We can win!
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.”
LibDem Conmen Should Be Expelled From Parliament
Liars, Conmen And Cheats
I support the tuition fee proposals. They seem very fair to me and I can’t see that any prospective student can have any complaint about the terms offered.
However, if you’re an MP and before the election you signed a pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees then you have no choice. It doesn’t matter if you’re a minister or if the economic situation is worse than you thought it was. This is black and white. It’s clear cut. There can be no argument. If you break your signed commitment then you have to go.
If you seek to evade your commitment or fudge the issue then you compound your crime. And I see no reason why it should not be a crime. In civil law it is a clear breach of contract but it is much more serious than that. It is obtaining a seat in parliament on false pretences. It wasn’t a vague promise made in the heat of the election campaign. It was a written agreement.
Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and all their cronies who have broken their word should be frogmarched out of parliament and charged with criminal deception. They should all go to jail. Not for a long time. Six months will do but each and every one of them is a proven liar, conman and cheat. They have no honour.
Unless parliament takes this action to preserve its integrity, then its reputation will sink even lower. It sets the most appalling example to the country and any MP who allows this scandal to persist without action is an accessory after the fact.
Shame on you, you weak and pathetic cowards. You disgrace yourselves and our country.
Peter Reynolds 