Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

When We Grow…This Is What We Can Do

with 51 comments

About these ads

Written by Peter Reynolds

February 23, 2011 at 5:17 pm

51 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So if the clasification of cannabis as a class B drug is not based on evidence? Then surely one must be able to challenge the validity of the misuse of drugs act, as it clearly is not an evidence based piece of legislation – this to me shows that we do not have a proper classification of Cannabis – How can anyone be sentenced under a false piece of legislation???

    Surley one for the human rights courts?

    I’m Game anyone else like to look into this further?

    Or am i simply delusional

    Paul Smith

    February 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    • Paul, drugs classification doesn’t relate in any way to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
      The Act was intended as a means of control, and doesn’t have any remit for prohibition or punishment.
      In fact, the Act is discriminatory, in that the two most popular (and most dangerous) recreational drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are excluded from its scope for “cultural and historic” reasons.
      So the law discriminates against some users of some drugs.
      The Drug Equality Alliance http://www.drugequality.org/are busy addressing these anomalies.

      pjmcneill

      February 23, 2011 at 6:36 pm

      • Mr. Brokenshire seems to think the classification does:

        “In the UK, the Misuse of Drugs Act has established a drug classification system based on drug harm, which is well recognised and which provides the criminal justice system with a stable and enduring system that continues to serve its purpose. There is no system of control, or even a system of structuring drug-harm classifications, that is obviously better than the current one. The Misuse of Drugs Act also provides for the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, whose independent expert advisory role to successive UK Governments in shaping the UK’s drug policy is widely acknowledged. Its statutory duty is to keep the situation in the UK under examination in respect to drugs, and it advises on measures which ought to be taken to prevent the misuse of drugs. “*

        The audacity of the statement… I hope the Drug Equality Alliance are successful in getting alcohol/tobacco brought under the MDA and we can then expose a little bit more of the hypocrisy.

        *http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/policereform/110217/pm/110217s01.htm

        Jake

        February 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm

      • Does anyone else reading this link (Clause 2) think this kinda went . . .

        Dr H : Can we get someone independant to look at the MDA 1971 to see if it is the best way to go ?

        Broken Brain : No. Someone may find out the truth.

        Dr H : I’m sorry I spoke Sir, please forget I asked.

        . . . as much a sellout as a certain Democratic Party I could mention.

        Cupid Stunt

        February 23, 2011 at 7:28 pm

      • further reading: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmstand/output/deleg/dg01110216-01.htm

        Note the sanity from Paul Fylnn, I especially liked; “We would have to go back to 1971 to discover why we are in this extraordinary position. In that year, the Act was passed with the affirmation of all parties in the House, which is almost a guarantee of a bad law.”

        And then more dodging from ‘Mr. Broken’ “our new drugs strategy, which is about reducing demand, controlling supply and promoting recovery, ” funny, because you can achieve ALL of those with regulation… its beyond ignorance, beyond partisan politics.. its criminal injustice!

        Jake

        February 23, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      • I find that remark very curious, why consensus is akin to bad law? I don’t think he realises that the power to administer the law is in the government’s hands – their policy is their policy. We don’t want a new drug law, please not that, what we want is the law enacting fairly.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm

      • HI, but this is NOT the point of the DEA campaign. What we want is for the ACMD to warn government about alcohol and tobacco being liable to become designated as ‘controlled drugs’ and the government to ask the acmd to advise them on the possibility of this and options for control. Not that they actually do any such policy, they must merely ask the question, and the right question, such questions being devoid of errors of law that creates the spurious notion that even alcohol misusers are exempt from a law used to persecute responsible cannabis users. The same errors that create the false notion of ‘legal drugs’ from the lie that is ‘cannabis is illegal’ – a disasterous folly that spoiled my enjoyment of this otherwise excellent film about hemp.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 25, 2011 at 9:19 pm

      • Didn’t post the link properly – here it is again:

        http://www.drugequality.org/

        pjmcneill

        February 24, 2011 at 1:33 am

      • I would say that the MODA does create the classification system, does have a remit for prohibition in some circumstances, and it does establish punishments – so wrong on all counts but thanks for the plug!

        A&T are not excluded from it’s scope at all – they are very much within it’s scope yet they are avoided because of the false belief in that the users of these drugs are using ‘legal drugs’ and thus not within the concern of the MODA. This policy IS NOT consistent with the law AS IT STANDS.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 25, 2011 at 9:13 pm

      • Darryl – my apologies. I understand the potential of the MODA when implemented under a scientific and evidence-based system. However, we both know that as it currently stands, as you say, it is not consistent with the intentions of the MODA – in that we now have more accurate measures of harm that conflict with the current classification system. So in a sense Mr. Brokenshire was correct, but we all understand the hypocrisy in his words as he and his ilk don’t allow it to be administered correctly. So although correct, he was still lying (if that makes sense) and the criminal injustice was the mal-administration of the law as you rightly state.

        Regarding consensus being akin to bad law, I think Mr. Flynn meant that if everyone is in agreement there is no/limited debate, and debate is needed to refine decisions. I don’t know a huge amount about what actually goes on in the halls of power but I imagine that to get that level of consensus for any policy requires some level of manipulation or suppression (for example student fee increases passed with the affirmation of the conservatives and libs but some liberals were threatened with the loss of their job if they voted against the rise). Mr. Flynn may have made a general and sweeping comment there and maybe I’m wrong about this whole consensus issue but I do think there is some truth in his words?

        Also, what I said about A&T being under the remit of the MODA may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek as if the ACMD recommend it be ‘controlled’ how do they classify these drugs? How does the government rationalise ignoring the advice etc.? Hopefully the flat hypocrisy of their answers will lead to progress which is why work by the DEA is so valued and important :-).

        Jake

        February 26, 2011 at 2:45 pm

      • Hi Jake – the unconscionability or otherwise of the policy adopted by the Government with regards to their duties under the MODA is in some regards, a secondary consideration, it is wrong to presume that this starts with matters of policy. The assertion is that it was arrived at incorrectly, through errors of law and misconstruction of the MODA. This concerns errors of thinking and understanding about the law that make the arrival at any policy meaningless. It is the inability of the decision maker to ask the right questions so as to formulate a legitimate policy that manifests in the objectionable policy. The first priority is to construe the Act in the light of the claim that by their error the government has abandoned jurisdiction over the vast majority of drug misusers (being consumers of the so-called ‘legal drugs’ alcohol and tobacco) and misconstrued the MODA to be an act of prohibition rather than an Act to make arrangements for the supply of controlled drugs (controlled drugs being any drug that may cause social harm). This decision is based upon cultural and historical factors is ultra vires the Act and exists only because in the spurious belief that the Act makes some substances legal and others illegal. The Act regulates persons, and this is a vital distinction when combined with the fact that it does not forbid the use of drugs either – it seeks that the socially harmful effects of drug misuse are ameliorated through restrictions over property-based activities with controlled drugs. These are readily achieved as you say through the use of the flexible nature of the Act with regards making regulations to enable these measures to target misuse and to remain neutral about sensible use where possible.

        I accept what you say about Paul Flynn re consensus, it’s just such a sweeping comment that is negates the possibility of reasonable law making being something we can agree on – and of course we are great fans of the Act, we think it’s great and it is the government who misuse it – what he is saying is never mind government, they are just using a bad law so it’s not their faul. The last thing we need is anew law – my concern is that he does not understand the law in the way our analysis seeks to interrogate it. He has told me he is not interested in our view, and that, as you might expect makes me question his role.

        Darryl Bickler

        February 28, 2011 at 3:03 am

      • A letter I sent and await a reply to; please feel free to copy paste adapt send:

        02/03/2011
        James Brokenshire MP,
        Parliamentary Under Secretary
        of State for Crime Prevention,
        2 Marshem Street.
        London SW1A 0AA

        Dear Mr Brokenshire

        Thank you for you response to my previous email on the subject of cannabis tincture now rebranded at great expense to the British taxpayer as Sativex, though I note your reply was not directly to me of course but to Mary McCleod MP and her request that you respond to me, I have not had the courtesy of a direct reply.

        In your response you failed to answer the questions with any credibility. Claiming that Sativex is not the same as raw cannabis despite it having exactly the same range of cannabinoids as normal/natural cannabis; it is pharmaceutically identical in its chemical make up. I am writing again and expect a much more detailed answer; I would very much like to know exactly ‘how’ it is different; chemically, or perhaps on a molecular scale. Unless of course it is an interaction between cannabis and the other ingredients, one unknown to me, or for that matter anyone else.

        You have also ignored/ failed to properly address my question over licensing Sativex by referring to the communication from ACMD which while it refers to Cannabis/Sativex and its need to be listed appropriately in Schedule 4 or 2 it is not the answer to the question asked. Which is to do with licensing approval which is I believe the responsibility of the Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to make these decisions not as you have implied the responsibility of the ACMD. Neither does it answer how cannabis can be scheduled as a ‘Dangerous drug of little or no medical value’ in schedule 1, while also existing in schedule 4 (the appropriate schedule or schedule 2 (the compromise to fit international requirements) as a ‘Medicine of little or no known harm’, which is impossible to achieve without a falsification of the facts.

        I believe you are also well aware that your and the governments attitude to the right of those of a Muslim faith in this country to effective health care is being compromised as there are no effective other medicines that work as well as cannabis, no matter which form the cannabis comes in.

        The only things different between Cannabis and Sativex are the impurities, Cannabis in its natural form can be produced free of contaminants with a licensing and testing approach (such as should be employed by GW Pharmaceuticals when they grow their Skunk* Cannabis, while Sativex, by its method and nature of production has contaminates infused into the mix deliberately; why? These contaminate are only included to facilitate the function of the patented dispensing device, Sativex contains Ethanol Anhydrous the rest being made up of Propylene Glycol, Peppermint Oil and Cannabis oil. Only one of these ingredients has any medical application claimed for it ‘Cannabis’ (despite its inclusion in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act as a drug of little or no medical value)? Propylene Glycol on the other hand; a cosmetic form of mineral oil found in automatic brake and hydraulic fluid and industrial antifreeze. In the skin and hair, propylene glycol works as a humescent, which causes retention of moisture content of skin or cosmetic products by preventing the escape of moisture or water? The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.
        Propylene glycol is commonly found in: Makeup – shampoo – deodorant – detangler-styling mousse – cleansing cream – mascara – soap – skin cream – bubble bath – baby powder – conditioner – toner – after shave – baby wipes. It is also in: Tyre sealant – Rubber cleaner – De-icer – Stain removers – Fabric softener – Degreaser – Paint – Adhesive – Wallpaper stripper.
        I know of no positive Medical claims for this product!
        ETHYL ALCOHOL (ANHYDROUS)
        INGESTION • May cause dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, decreased awareness and responsiveness, euphoria, abdominal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, staggering gait, lack of coordination and coma.
        SKIN ABSORPTION • No adverse effects with normal skin; However, potentially harmful amounts of material may be absorbed across markedly abraded skin when contact is sustained, particularly in children.
        INHALATION • High vapor concentrations may cause a burning sensation in the throat and nose, stinging and watering in the eyes. At concentrations which cause irritation, dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting may occur.
        EYE CONTACT • Severe eye irritant even vapors can irritate eyes. Eye damage from contact with liquid is reversible and proper treatment will result in healing within a few days. Damage is usually mild to moderate conjunctivitis, seen mainly as redness of the conjunctiva.
        EFFECT OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSURE• Long term repeated oral exposure to ethanol may result in the development of progressive liver injury with fibrosis.
        MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY OVEREXPOSURE • Repeated exposure to ethanol may exacerbate liver injury produced from other causes.
        OTHER EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE • Repeated ingestion of ethanol by pregnant mothers has been shown to adversely affect the central nervous system of the fetus, producing a collection of effects which together constitute the fetal alcohol syndrome. These include mental and physical retardation, disturbances of learning, motor and language deficiencies, behavioral disorders, and small size head.
        I know of no positive Medical claims for this product!
        Peppermint while not controlled or illegal is banned from having medical claims made on its behalf under the EU Medical Herbs Directive.
        I find it interesting to note that the warnings over Sativex and pregnant/ breast feeding women only mentions the possible (speculative) effects of cannabis on the fetus/infant whilst ignoring the known effect of Ethanol Anhydrous. It should also be noted that most side effects attributed to Sativex are those known to be a problem with the alcohols used to make the cannabis oil used thin enough to be used in the patented mist dispenser.
        I recently appeared on a BBC 3 broadcast where I warned people over contaminated street cannabis, the truth is this medical cannabis also has some questionable pollutants / contaminants that add nothing to the medical affectivity of cannabis. Indeed these contaminate are only included to facilitate the function of the patented dispensing device and Sativex itself seems to be nothing more than cannabis tincture as was available in any chemists pre 1963 and not, a new revolutionary drug worth the £10m that the British taxpayer has put into cannabis as medicine.
        Natural cannabis in its many varieties has the ability to offer a broader spectrum of cannabinoids tailor made to offer more effective relief to the many and diverse medical problems cannabis is documented as being an effective treatment of.
        Vaporizing devices such as are available freely in many outlets across the UK are effective medical delivery systems that need no contaminants to work, do not contain alcohol as such they compromise no ones religion or right to ‘effective medical treatment’ as the government current stance does. The governments current policies also act to protect GW Pharmaceuticals strangle hold on its competitors by restricting medical competition such as is accepted in much of the EU and the USA. It is a hypocrisy that allows foreign nationals to use medical cannabis in the UK while arresting the sick and dying of the UK for using the same medicine. Now we are informed that cannabis minus the fibre of the leaf and flower mixed with a selective blend of contaminants / alcohols is to be placed in schedules 4 or 2 as a medicine of little or no danger, while cannabis in its natural non toxic form is to stay in schedule 1 as a drug of little or no medicinal value. This is pure protectionism in its most base form. It is interesting to note that vaporized cannabis is more effective by being better absorbed than Sativex/tincture and has immediate effect; below is an extract from the MHRA web site dealing with Sativex;
        Absorption:
        The inhaled route results in a very different plasma concentration /time profile from that following oromucosal administration of Sativex. A rapid increase in plasma THC levels occurs when Cannabis is smoke is inhaled, in contrast to the Tmax for Sativex of approximately 90 minutes. From the available published literature it can be demonstrated that the plasma levels of THC following smoked or vaporised THC BDS (mean dose 6.6mg, mean Cmax =118ng/mL, Study GWPKO114) are over 10 times higher than those achieved with a cautious omucosal administration with Sativex (mean dose 10.4mg THC + 10mg CBD mean Cmax = 4.9ng/mL (THC), Study GWPK215).
        * Skunk; I use this term, as this is the term applied by the press, police and government when describing plants grown using the methods employed by GW Pharmaceuticals or plants hybridized to adjust cannabinoid ratios, I believe both plants currently used by GW Pharmaceutical’s has been bred to achieve pre conceived results in common with all other cannabis ‘labeled as skunk’ despite this name not being botanically accepted. One plant being high in THC and one high in CBD, these plants I believe are not naturally occurring land races but hybridizations aka skunk.
        I request a proper accurate statement of ‘fact’ over these issues, not the fudge of prohibition led falsities and sweeping generalisations that your last letter contained.

        Yours Sincerely

        Mr P S Walsh.

        Philip Walsh

        March 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

      • Great letter Phil.

        I fear that the only thing that will stop Brokenshire distributing lies and misinformation is a High Court judge.

        “The revolution is not an apple that falls when ripe. You have to make it fall” – Che Guevara

        Peter Reynolds

        March 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm

  2. smart kid , it made my mother cry near the end

    boss

    February 23, 2011 at 6:19 pm

  3. Brilliant video!

    All the stuff I’d liked to have seen was in there and well presented.

    Well done to all involved.

    Tom:Speed

    February 23, 2011 at 6:48 pm

  4. at last.

    Dump_pharma

    February 23, 2011 at 7:40 pm

  5. Great Stuff!

    Bob

    February 23, 2011 at 7:41 pm

  6. Absolutely brilliant. Sarah’s got a set of bowling balls and a pringles can between her legs for being so open about this, got a whole lot of respect for that woman!

    Peter, great contributions. Makes a nice change from seeing guys stoned out of their trees on youtube ranting about cannabis. :)

    Elliot Haughin

    February 23, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    • Don’t knock the Stoners or you will make it ‘respectable’ and that means boring. Not sure about women being empowered by gaining enormous male genitalia – for one they would have to go to the added expense of purhasing extra large condoms. I guess we should be seeing some new merchandising soon, green willy anyone?

      Darryl Bickler

      February 25, 2011 at 9:23 pm

  7. Thank you for making this film available – it’s extremely good. I really hope it gets shown on TV. Well done to everyone involved!

    Peta

    February 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm

  8. That was a very informative documentary and has surely got to evoke a healthy level of curiosity to want to know more after you laid it out in black and white.. Nicely done, we need to ask our government just exactly who they represent? Corporates or the people of England?
    We know the truth and we wont rest until everyone knows the lie that is cannabis prohibition, or we get a government with guts and principles to do what is right instead of what looks good to the propaganda brainwashed masses. Governments should take the lead not take the p.

    Pistils@dawn

    February 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm

  9. This makes me quite quite sad. It’s not like I didn’t know the situation beforehand but it just sickens me that political posturing is more important to these people than the quality of life of thousands.

    Makes me ashamed to be British.

    Sam

    February 23, 2011 at 11:22 pm

  10. I am at Isleworth Crown court (1st appearance)if I can’t get the case thrown out on technicalities, I will be basing my not guilty plea on miss classification. I am not sure what my Barrister will make of this defence but if he won’t do it he can f*** off. Gordon Brown and the rest of them are not, were not qualified to ignore the advice of those employed/ mandated by the tenant of the act, upon who’s advice the government were legaly abliged to act!!!!

    Philip Walsh

    February 24, 2011 at 12:24 am

  11. I am at Isleworth Crown court (1st appearance)if I can’t get the case thrown out on technicalities, I will be basing my not guilty plea on miss classification. I am not sure what my Barrister will make of this defence but if he won’t do it he can f*** off. Gordon Brown and the rest of them are not, were not qualified to ignore the advice of those employed/ mandated by the tenant of the act, upon who’s advice the government were legally obliged to act!!!!

    Philip Walsh

    February 24, 2011 at 12:25 am

    • The Government are not legally obliged to act on the advice of the ACMD, there could be a finding that if in their administration of the law, government had acted illegally, but this cannot be merely by ignorring the ACMD. All Government are obliged to do is consult them. What about this defence? Can I see it pls?

      Darryl Bickler

      February 25, 2011 at 9:04 pm

  12. Very well done! This has been long over due, thank you.
    Just need to see it on mainstream TV now.

    Noodle

    February 24, 2011 at 7:26 am

  13. so far I’ve emailed the guardian, sun, mail, mark easton and a bunch of viral sites about this film. not that it will help but everyone should do similar. even if its one person in your contacts list.

    Dump_pharma

    February 24, 2011 at 10:30 am

  14. @ Dump_Pharma, ME too!! I’ve contacted the Beeb, the Guardian, The Mail!! (I’ve avoided the Sun, I can’t bring myself to visit the site!) Posted in my FB status too (everyone can do this at least).

    We all must try to get this circulated to as many as possible, through as many outlets as possible.

    Excellent work too by the Drug equality alliance JRing the Home Office.

    And thanks again Peter for your continued efforts…

    Bob

    February 24, 2011 at 11:28 am

    • Thanks Rob, at the moment we haven’t got permission to continue in that case, we are fighting it but up against a circulating misconception within the judges assigned to the matters that it doesn’t have to be looked at. They say it’s not their concern.

      Darryl Bickler

      February 25, 2011 at 9:00 pm

  15. When we advocate against Cannabis prohibition, we must stress not just the “denial of good” which it entails, such as the remarkable medicinal properties of the plant, its violence-suppressing potential, or its ability to induce calm and relaxed state which is “worlds apart” from the effects of alcohol and many “legal” prescription drugs. Cannabis Prohibition is an unadulterated evil, as it pushes the people to engage in a dangerous substance use, such as the stories with alcoholic caffeinated drinks just explicitly demonstrated. The cruelty and senselessness of the prohibitionists have also been made obvious recently, when an Oklahoma mom received 10-year sentence for $31worth of Cannabis, when the medicinal Cannabis providers and patients continue to be raided and harassed. What more evidence of political piracy can be presented than when the dogmatic “politicos” want to directly trample the Will of Montana voters with respect to Medicinal Cannabis, which Citizens lawfully enacted in their state, or when Las Vegas police and DEA continue to harass the Medicinal Cannabis establishments? To what level of hypocrisy and spiritual degradation can one descend when the medicinal Cannabis patients are persecuted in the city where alcohol abuse and compulsive gambling are rampant?! My only hope in the midst of all this prohibitionist outrage is that its collapse is philosophically inevitable. In particular, when the DEA and its allies blackmail politicians into voting against Medicinal Cannabis, they do so on the basis of an unreal “entity”, the so-called “gateway drug” theory that is fully discredited by now as “half-baked”! How can our so-called “representatives” put important social programs on a “chopping block” because of the “budget crisis”, while these same people waste tens of millions of dollars on the so-called “marijuana enforcement”, opposed by most of this country’s voters! The Cannabis prohibitionists are guilty of crimes against humanity, they will be called to answer for them sooner or later!

    Leonard Krivitsky, MD

    February 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

  16. Brilliant Documentary into the actual truth and harm, 10/10

    what this country needs is more people like minded to stand up against the way we all get tarred with the same brush, and often with non scientific based evidence, the Science is there and has already proven the facts..

    they are quick enough to provide forensics that are there to prove the crime, but its not a crime that anyone should be getting punished for..

    The GOV need to look at control and regulation or legislation, as this would have more benefits to us all, than anything else on this planet (As highlighted in the video).. so why do we get this shunned to one side every time?

    This stupid Idealistic un-scientific based evidence the gov resorts to needs to end, and Its about time we all nipped this in the bud :D

    Education is the KEY! and all I have to say is keep up the good work, as you have put together one amazing video.

    halfy

    February 24, 2011 at 4:18 pm

  17. Is there any way you could get the video onto current.tv or the open access channel broadcast on Sky?

    They have so little content it loops round weekly so it would get plenty of air play.

    We need to publicise the cannabis lantern launch happening in April.

    Mr Bimble

    February 24, 2011 at 6:24 pm

  18. [...] with 2 comments [...]

  19. Thanks to you peter (and the makers of this film), we now have a very powerful tool in our arsenal, the fact it isn’t at all confrontational helps this supremely.

    E. Tricker

    February 24, 2011 at 7:08 pm

  20. Excellent work. The best I’ve seen. My hat off to Seth for an honest and open documentary. Superb!

    Nick

    February 25, 2011 at 10:07 am

  21. Peter you need to see this…
    David Cameron: A World View Interview

    jimbob

    February 25, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    • damn tried to time link it didnt work.., skip to 10mins 40 seconds.

      jimbob

      February 25, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    • A disgrace to his post. Bullshit pusher. Lie peddler. dysfunctional fool. How the hell does he justify his stand when the scientific community says otherwise. What he meant to say was…’I don’t like this question….I don’t care what science says… I’m proud that because of my policies that it IS dangerous, especially for the children. I couldn’t really give a —- Do you know anyone who wants to buy some guns…? Yes, my middle name does start with a C . Don’t be silly the world is flat.

      Sometimes its so hard to see what they are trying to tell us!

      Nick

      February 26, 2011 at 2:25 pm

  22. Mr Cameron’s repsonse to the marijuana question (the 2nd MOST popular one at that) is throughly depressing.

    He calls marijuana TOXIC and incredibly damaging! Its as if he is talking about some new drug, and not cannabis. He seemingly completely misses the point of the question! What have drug addicts got to do with Marijuana?!?! and how the hell are these new addicts going to be treated? Have the tories invested in shares in the ‘cannabis’ rehab market? easy money!

    Maybe someone should sent him a copy of this film!

    Its scary that our prime minister can talk such utter guff without any reference to facts!

    Bob

    February 26, 2011 at 3:11 am

    • IMHO it means that jailing avg users isnt going to happen, good you might think yeh?.
      This will skew the drug usage statistics. It will appear that more and more people are going into treatment (rather than jail) hence enforcing a twisted gov fact that illegal drugs cause increasing mental health issues.

      Utter farce.

      However it does look like good news for medicinal users though eventually.

      jimbob

      February 26, 2011 at 10:10 am

  23. yet another bare faced lie from our goverment,caught on tape. how can any one trust this man when he lies so openly.

    graham

    February 26, 2011 at 1:08 pm

  24. You can always tell when polititions are lying – their mouths are open.

    They still don’t get it, do they….

    Cannabis users are not addicts that need criminalising/treating – most of us can quite happily use cannabis like MP’s use alcohol with no addiction whatsoever.

    Mr Bimble

    February 26, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    • Couldnt have said it better myself Mr Bimble , Our MPs need to remember that they work for us . If Mr Cameron really wants to save us some cash and avoid questions hes asked lets all start asking him harder questions like , why do we pay for MPs to live in houses when they are working away from home in London , would it not be cheaper to house them all in the high rise flats they built for familys to live in . Even with 24 hour securty around the tower block it would still save the tax payer millions upon millions every year, with the exception of important MPs . We should try and turn his own MPs against him . How do you think a snobby MP would react having to live in a tower block during the week ? They would fuc*ing hate him for it .

      steve

      March 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm

  25. Superb!!!

    Dr.Jupiter

    March 2, 2011 at 11:52 pm

  26. Great and informative documentary.
    It is so good to finally see a programme which is honest and not your normal propaganda which is fed to us on TV constantly and maybe Number 10 and other politicians should take notice on such in depth and fact based discussions.

    It just needs to be shown on mainstream TV now to challenge peoples misconceptions about cannabis so we dont have to put up with ex soap stars etc basically being the voice of government with no actual fact based programmes, but instead to have sensible and straight to the point discussions about cannabis and its benefits to many people.
    Well done to the makers of this documentary as you have done a great job and I do hope that people take notice and we see more programmes like this in the future.
    Peace out

    Monkeynutz

    March 4, 2011 at 2:41 am

  27. Has anyone contacted the media groups? to determine if they would be interested to air this? I’d love to see this excellent information broadcast to the masses…

    I think i’ll write to them and send them a link to see if they would be interested.

    Pistils@dawn

    March 6, 2011 at 10:53 am

    • I think thats a great idea and hopfully one of them will take notice.I think Channel 4 would maybe be one which would air this as the BBC has its own agenda with what programmes it has shown so far(45 mins talking about asian gangs,dangers of cannabis and 10-15 mins on the medicinal uses.)Would be interested to see what happens so give it is a go Pistils@dawn and good luck

      Monkeynutz

      March 6, 2011 at 11:25 am

  28. http://london.indymedia.org/articles/1448

    Does anyone know if there is a maximum allowed timeframe for a case to be heard at the High Court? can they delay this ruling for as long as they wish rather than let it test the current framework of law? or must they hear and pass judgement within x amount of time?

    I have my fingers well and truly crossed for this case to be heard as soon as possible as this is exactly what we are talking about, challenging the misinterpretation of the misuse of drugs act which is a very sensible piece of legislation just as long as it isn’t interpreted by fraggle rock dwelling corporate puppets. :-/

    Pistils@dawn

    March 6, 2011 at 11:02 am

  29. http://www.drugequality.org/cases.htm#edwin

    apologies, this has already been dealt with, if a total misinterpretation of the actual grounds of his claim is what you could call dealt with, he was given a suspended sentence which is a disgrace, this case was dealt with in a wholly unfair, unjust and ignorant manner and shows how clever and strategically our laws are worded and how carefully certain high court judges have been placed within the system with the sole purpose of defending the crown and not even if that means sacrificing justice.

    Pistils@dawn

    March 6, 2011 at 11:19 am

  30. Could I PLEASE ask you to think twice about releasing so many of these lanterns. This is a SERIOUS issue. They cover arable areas and the wire is then baled up in straw which then can be fed to livestock especially cattle. This has led to some very unpleasant damage to the animals intestines and in many cases the animal dies. This is becoming an increasingly common occurrence. Please think before you set these things off. Thank you

    julian Swift

    April 8, 2011 at 9:50 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: