Posts Tagged ‘prime minister’
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
Mr Cameron, It’s You Who Needs Education About Cannabis!
See the interview here. The relevant part starts at 10:45.
Al Jazeera: This was incidentally, the second most popular question because viewers would submit questions and then members of the public would vote.
Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them? Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?
Cameron: Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems. But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.
Al Jazeera: What about the argument that it could be used as medicinal properties? That was another question we actually had, a person saying it’s got proven medicinal properties. If used properly and regulated properly it could actually be quite helpful.
Cameron: That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that. But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.
Dear Mr Cameron,
I am writing about your answer to the question about marijuana during the recent Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview.
I am the recently elected leader of the LCA. I represent the interests of at least two million regular users of cannabis and perhaps as many as 10 million occasional users in Britain. This is a huge proportion of the population and on their behalf I am requesting a meeting with you.
We were dismayed, shocked even, at your answer to the question. With respect, clearly it is you who are in great need of education about cannabis. The information you gave was inaccurate and false. While we must all respect different opinions, your answer was factually wrong and you must correct it.
Cannabis is not “incredibly damaging”, nor “very, very toxic”. It is a myth that there is anything significantly different about the cannabis on sale today and the idea that it causes “in many cases, huge mental health problems” has been comprehensively disproved many times over by scientists all over the world.
I can provide you with scientific information which proves that these ideas are false. Recently we have been pursuing various newspapers through the Press Complaints Commission for publishing the same inaccuracies. I am seriously alarmed when I see the prime minster of my country distributing such untruths.
Two key facts:
The Therapeutic Ratio of cannabis (ED50:LD50) is 1:40000 (Alcohol = 1:10, Paracetamol = 1:30). Even potatoes are more toxic than cannabis.
Professor Glyn Lewis of the University of Bristol reviewed all published research on cannabis and psychosis in 2009 and concluded that 96% of people have no risk whatsoever and in the remaining 4% the risk is “statistically tiny”.
Your suggestion that legalising drugs increases use is also not supported by the evidence. In both Holland and Portugal where cannabis use is not prosecuted, consumption is much lower than in Britain.
Finally, on medicinal use it is simply not true that the scientific and medical authorities are free to make independent determinations. The Home Office stamps on any medicinal cannabis use even when prescribed by a doctor. People from other European countries can bring medicinal cannabis to Britain and use it legally under the Schengen agreement but you can’t if you’re British. Here, sick and disabled people are being prosecuted every day for use of a medicine which is scientifically and medically proven. Surely you cannot be unaware of this? It is a cruel and evil policy which shames our nation.
So please, Mr Cameron, will you meet with me in order that I may show you the evidence and the facts about cannabis? Remember, this was the second most popular question you were asked on Friday and I represent the interests of millions of British citizens. Please make time for me in your diary.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Reynolds
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 Labour Leadership
Four Men And One Woman In A Sinking Boat
I suppose I should get my six ha’porth in, if that’s the correct expression, before the result is announced.
The very entertaining More 4 programme, Miliband Of Brothers, finally corrected my spelling last night. There may be two brothers but there’s only one “l”. I’ve been getting it wrong all the way through this thoroughly underwhelming campaign. At least it will be all over this afternoon. Then we’ll be treated to the appalling spectre of Gordon Brown making a farewell speech. Farewell and good riddance I say. The worst British prime minister in my lifetime. No doubt about that.
David Miliband is the obvious choice. He has the gravitas that you would expect from an ex-foreign secretary but I fear that he will be yesterday’s man by the time of the next election.
Ed Miliband has most of the qualities that his brother offers but with a spark of individuality that I think would serve his party well. If I was a a Labour supporter, wanting to see the party succeed, Ed would be my choice.
Andy Burnham can be very proud of the campaign he has run. He is coherent, honourable, very telegenic and, I should think, every Labour mum’s toyboy fantasy. He hasn’t got a hope in hell.
Ed Balls? Now as a Tory he gets my vote. What a total plonker! He would be disastrous for the Labour Party but it would make wonderful entertainment for the rest of us. I can dream!
I’m very fond of Diane Abbott. Along with all my fellow political junkies I love the Michael & Diane sofa partnership on “This Week”. They’re the real stars of the show, forget the leering old lothario in the corner. Trouble is, Diane isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. In fact she’s probably the bluntest in the entire kitchen so I’ll be looking forward to seeing her back on the sofa with Michael next Thursday.
The Public Sector Pay Scandal
There are very few things in politics that are simple. This is an exception. The principle, implied by Panorama, that no one in the public sector should be paid more than the prime minister seems very sensible to me.
I already knew that BBC senior executives enjoy vastly overinflated pay but the fact that Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, gets £838,000 per annum is shocking. It is particularly hard to take after the absurd spectacle of the Pope’s visit. The leader of a very minor church, presently mired in appalling scandal, has enjoyed a bonanza of free, round the clock, TV, radio and internet promotion. I didn’t know but it turns out that Mark Thompson is a rabid Catholic. He has a nerve to run his own private campaigns at our expense! This is too much!
He is at the top and is the very worst of a deeply depressing list of excess and vanity. I am sure that many of these people are very able and skilled in their profession. If and when they choose to go into the private sector they may well make millions. While in the public sector, every single one of them should be very grateful for the privilege to serve.
The argument about market forces, put forward by the leader of Liverpool City Council, is just a weak excuse. If he really believes it then he needs to think again. Believe me, real market forces will sort this out, no problem. We will still get the very best in senior positions if we recruit properly. Successful people will seek to make their name in the public sector first, in prestige positions, then move on to make their fortune.
I say increase the prime minister’s salary to £250,000. These gestures of senior politicians cutting their own pay are meaningless and impress no one. Make that the maximum that anyone in the public sector can earn. Enforce it immediately. All salaries to be trimmed to that level from 1st October. I see everything in favour of this and nothing against.
My MP, Richard Drax, To Write To David Cameron On Drugs Policy
The Honourable Member For Dorset South
Today I met with my MP, Richard Drax. He was just as sickeningly handsome and charming as I expected him to be! So I showed him no mercy and bombarded him with my opinions for a good half an hour.
I realised afterwards that my favourite maxim “less is more” would have been a better strategy. Nevertheless, he did offer to write to David Cameron on my behalf on drugs policy and seemed genuinely sympathetic to some of the points I made.
I have just sent him a lengthy email in confirmation which I reproduce below. If anyone wishes to use this as a template for a letter or email to their own MP, please feel free to do so.
******
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for your time today. I very much enjoyed meeting you. As I said, I came with opinions not problems. I am grateful to you for listening to me.
I realise that I made the classic mistake of bombarding you with far too much information and not giving you time to absorb any. I hope I may correct that error by summarising here what we talked about.
1. Gary McKinnon. Thank heavens that progress seems to have been made on this. The idea of an “extradition” treaty that provides for someone to be sent to the USA for trial on an alleged crime committed here is iniquitous. It’s particularly unfair in McKinnon’s case as he suffers from Asperger’s syndrome. You pointed out to me that similar dangers exist with the new European arrest warrant.
I would urge you to do everything possible to ensure that if Gary McKinnon is to be tried, it should take place in the UK.
2. Ian Tomlinson. In my view the failure to prosecute the policeman who assaulted him is an outrage and Keir Starmer’s reasons entirely inadequate. Now that the credibility of the pathologist in the case has been destroyed by a GMC panel, Starmer should at least reconsider and hopefully reverse his decision.
References here:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/killer-cop-harwood-must-be-charged/
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/keir-starmer-the-next-lord-widgery/
I would urge you to press for a re-consideration of the decision not to bring charges. If no criminal charges are brought, at the very least the disciplinary hearing should be held in public as the rules allow. The Tomlinson family are entitled to justice.
3. Drugs policy. You very kindly agreed to write to David Cameron on my behalf. I am very concerned at the conduct of the Home Office at present and particularly James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention who is causing great damage to both the coalition governemnt and the Tory party by promoting ideas and policies that contradict virtually all expert opinion, including the government’s own scientific advisers. He also seems to be completely at odds with the calls for drug law reform which both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have made consistently over the last 10 years.
This is not a peripheral or secondary issue. According to Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords on 15th June 2010, “There is no more obvious waste than the £19 billion annual cost of the UK’s war on drugs”.
There is a huge amount of reference material on this subject on my blog:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/?s=drugs
I would also refer you to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation which has highly detailed and almost universally acclaimed proposals for drug regulation:
Virtually all experts agree that the “war on drugs” has failed. In exactly the same way as alcohol prohibition in the US led to a massive increase in crime and violence, so drug prohibition has created an illegal market said to be worth £350 billion per year. It has also financed civil war in Latin America for 25 years and is the principal source of finance for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are dying every day because of the illegal trade in opiates. Why don’t we just buy up the whole crop for the next 10 years? It would be much cheaper in both cash and lives than the Afghan war.
Virtually all experts agree that regulation would be a better solution. I have distilled the following five point plan from everything that I have read and learned over more than 30 years:
1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million UK citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue
Five years ago, while campaigning for the Tory party leadership, David Cameron called for “fresh thinking and a new approach” towards drugs policy and said that it would be “disappointing if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at”. Nick Clegg has promised to repeal “illiberal, intrusive and unnecessary” laws and to stop “making ordinary people criminals”. There can be no better example of this than the laws against personal use and cultivation of cannabis, particularly for medicinal reasons. The coalition government’s new Your Freedom website has been inundated with proposals to legalise cannabis and to end the futile war on drugs. In July a poll carried out for the LibDems showed 70% of people in favour of legalising cannabis.
The Home Office and James Brokenshire are completely out of touch with expert and public opinion as well as the declared views of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
In my view, regulation means tighter control on the most dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine and alcohol and lighter regulation on relatively harmless substances like cannabis and ecstasy.
There is also the very important question of medicinal cannabis. The discovery of the endocannabinoid system in 1998 has led to an ever-escalating volume of evidence of the medicinal value of cannabis. In June the MHRA approved Sativex as an MS medicine in the UK. It is a whole plant extract yet presently, the Home Office refuses to consider a regulated system of the plant itself for medicinal purposes. This is completely irrational and absurd. The House Of Lords scientific committee recommended such a system should be introduced 12 years ago. Medicinal cannabis is available and regulated throughout almost all of Europe, Israel and 14 states in the USA (with 12 more in the planning stage). The UK stands almost alone in its obstinate refusal even to consider such a system.
Already this is leading to quite obscene injustices where patients have been prescribed Sativex by their doctor but their health authority has refused to fund it and patients are then facing criminal prosecution for cultivating their own plants. There is a case of exactly this going on in the Dorchester Crown Court at present and the CPS insists it is in the public interest to prosecute!
Thank you once again for listening to me Richard. I hope these notes are useful in composing your letter to David Cameron and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards,
Peter Reynolds
A BBC Preservation Order
TAKE NOTICE
This noble institution should be preserved.
It is not perfect but it is better than any alternative.
It contributes enormously to the culture of the nation.
It is our BBC
This notice should be nailed to the door of Broadcasting House and all BBC premises. Damaging or cutting off parts or branches of the institution is not allowed. Adequate space must be given to the institution’s roots which must not be interfered with. Severe penalties will be applied to anyone who knowingly or recklessly damages the institution in any way.
Then David Cameron, Nick Clegg and a heavyweight team need to take Mark Thompson aside and give him a good talking to. We want to preserve the BBC and its unique qualities but we need a hard pruning of dead wood and unproductive growth. Preserving the roots and fundamental strength are the most important objectives. Cutbacks in the right places will stimulate stronger new growth elsewhere.
I agree that Sky should contribute towards those commercial channels that it broadcasts free-to-air. It ties viewers into its subscription packages because they are comprehensive. This is gives it an unfair advantage throughout the market, as does its coverage and bandwidth.
Sky is a parasite on traditional TV companies. Its unfair advantages have enabled it to develop the best user interface and experience in the market. Even so, it is expensive and has a reputation for appalling customer service. Its relationship with Newscorp means it is part of a monstrous media empire which requires much more regulation in the interests of consumers and the community at large. It should be required to invest more in original programming and production. If necessary, a new media tax should be introduced to enforce appropriate investment and safeguards.
The BBC’s biggest mistake is the level of executive pay. There is no justification at all for anyone in the BBC to earn more than the Prime Minister. It is public money. Anyone unhappy with this should resign today. No one is indispensable. The BBC has always been the best in its business at bringing on new talent.
The Licence Fee should remain unchanged. It is fantastic value for money and shows just how expensive Sky is. The BBC Trust should be strengthened in its primary role as regulator and it should enforce cost savings, efficiencies and executive pay. It should also ensure that the BBC becomes more responsive and closer to its audience. Its complaints and feedback system is fundamental to this. It needs to be brought back in house and given real priority. See here.
Britain adores its BBC. Let’s ensure we preserve it and allow it to flourish.
Cameron Calls For An End To Prison Camp Gaza
A Worthy Leader
I am proud to see our Prime Minister speaking out unequivocally against the Israeli blockade and oppression of Gaza. See here.
As for Turkey, I agree that they should be welcomed as EU members. Perhaps the resistance from other parts of Europe is because they see the EU as a social union whereas even the europhiles in the UK still see it primarily as a trading partnership. There are social benefits to be gained though. Bringing an Islamic nation, just about the only Islamic democracy, into the EU could do wonders for mutual understanding and peace.
Turkey has been a staunch ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, something that must have been very difficult at times for its people to accept. It also looks likely to enjoy explosive economic growth in the next few years. We should welcome Turkey with open arms although there must be appropriate controls on immigration. Any good would be undone if we were to be inundated with Turkish immigrants.
There Can Only Be One Choice For Clegg
If Nick Clegg chooses Labour then he will be consigning this country to disaster and his own reputation and integrity to the dustbin.
Stop Dithering!
There can be no other choice than the Conservatives. David Cameron is clearly the prime minister that the country wants. The country has rejected Labour and the mathematics of a Lib Dem/Labour coalition simply do not work.
Clegg now needs to stop dithering, push back the sandals and socks soft socialists in his own party and choose the future that the country needs.
Tories Need Electoral Reform Too
I would have thought it was obvious after the unsatisfactory result of this election that Tories need electoral reform too. It should definitely not be a dealbreaker between the Tories and Lib Dems. In fact, I’ll go further, David Cameron should offer a referendum on the issue – why not?
A redrawing of constituency boundaries so that each seat has the same number of voters would in itself be a more proportional form of representation. I also think that a fixed term of office would lead to fairer and more sensible government.
David Cameron has an opportunity now to become prime minister and usher in a new, fairer, brighter politics. If he misses this chance then he will have let down the British people as well as the Tory party and himself. Brown, at last, thank God, is gone. At least we can be grateful for that and, yes, eventually, he did find some dignity in his defeat.
Peter Reynolds 