Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Cameron On Cannabis Part 8

with 13 comments

Cameron On Cannabis Part 8 is on the CLEAR website

Advertisements

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What he fails to understand is, i’m 15 and can get my hands on it easily, and that shouldn’t be able to happen at all. Regulation is the way forwards, so people can’t make the same mistakes I nearly did, as they are too immature to respect how strong the affects of cannabis are. I’ve stopped now, and Keep up the good work Peter! I’ll vote for you soon. πŸ™‚

    Reggie

    September 4, 2011 at 2:39 pm

  2. Eh up Peter..

    blimey you are doing brilliantly.. I am here because there is a post I think is very useful considering the up and coming tax and regulate gig.

    https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/29793-what-a-long-strange-breezy-activism-trip-it-has-been/page__gopid__402106#entry402106

    The very lovely breezy so wants to give back as do many many medicinal users, her story and her spirit are immense, Federal law and British law I believe are very alike, we are willing to make our contribution and think it is important to point out how many thousands of pounds us MMJ users are saving the NHS by not needing their pharmaceuticals, we should be thanked not persecuted.

    On topic now.. you got Cameron by the short and curlies, I know it, you know and you can be sure as eggs is eggs Cameron knows it too.

    Onwards and Upwards, you do us proud Peter as does the whole team.

    lucky_cat

    September 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    • Thanks Lucky. Your comments and support are always appreciated and thanks for the link too.

      Peter Reynolds

      September 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm

  3. Since my input has been blocked for some unknown reason on the clear website I thought I would ask the same question here.

    “CLEAR is determined to put the cannabis issue back on the political agenda and to cut through the propaganda and misinformation that sustains prohibition.”

    I would like to ask in light of the above why Mr Reynolds has conceded all the main prohibitionist constructs regarding cannabis in his legalisation proposal namely the series of myths, each one depending on the other, regarding strong cannabis and mental illness, the first myth is that “new” cannabis is stronger than cannabis smoked by many in the 60s and 70s,

    I am sure we are all aware of the debunking of that particular myth by Mr Ben Goldacre on his badscience site, so if it is not stronger it follows that there is little risk to mental health as there were no such concerns about cannabis smoked in the 60s and 70s by several cabinet members no less,

    this alongside the fact that there has been no increase in mental illness despite the increase of availability and use of cannabis worldwide,
    so as we can see and as Mr Reynolds has argued himself repeatedly there is no basis in fact, science or reality for any of these claims made by prohibitionists so why include them in a proposal to the government when all concerned know them to be a lie?.

    No answer to this highly relevant question speaks volumes.

    more confused

    October 23, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    • Your comment hasn’t been “blocked”on the CLEAR website at all. I just answered it as follows:

      You certainly do seem confused!

      Most cannabis available in Britain today contains a higher level of THC than the cannabis available 20 and more years ago. That is a fact and it’s really rather silly to try to deny it.

      It is also a fact that cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis. Again, this is a fact and to deny it is absurd. There is also strong scientific evidence eto show that the higher the THC content of cananbis used the greater the increase in risk of psychosis.

      You are trying to oversimplify and paint issues as black or white in exactly the same dangerous and misinformed way as any prohibitionist.

      Start by telling the truth. Then you might have something useful to say.

      I’m afraid it isn’t a highly relevant question at all. It’s based on false assertions and rather silly denial of scientific evidence that has been replicated time and time again. I appreciate that you feel persecuted by the prohibition of cannabis as do many of us but you have allowed your concern to overflow into something approaching paranoia. You need to get a grip of the facts and start advancing a logical, reasonable argument, not indulging yourself in conspiracy theories!

      Peter Reynolds

      October 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm

      • I have just been on the CLEAR site and it still says “The site has blocked you from posting new comments.”
        so am I blocked or not?, why would it still say that if I was not?

        you say cannabis today has a higher level of THC than 20 years ago, can you provide proof of this, I am puzzled as to how cannabis is allegedly stronger than 20 years ago, how did it become stronger than the parent plants it has been bred from, are you aware that the variety named Skunk which has been alleged to cause mental illness, has been around since the 70s which is 40 years ago, as we all know or should know, cannabis strength is dependant on the genetic make up of its parent plants, plants are selected for desirable traits such as potency etc so it follows that if you have an end product that is strong at least one of its parents must have had similar strength,
        so it follows that there were strong varieties previously available to breed a strong plant from, if you cross two varieties that are weak you get a weak product, similarly if you breed two strong varieties you get a strong product, contrary to tabloid opinion you do not get a 10% THC plant by breeding two 5%THC plants together
        it does not work like that the effect is not cumulative other wise the cannabis boffins would now be breeding 100% THC plants which we can all readily accept as ridiculous, it has been stated by the police forensic data
        service that cannabis seized in the past was not regularly tested for percentage of THC content

        “An oft-repeated legend is that today’s cannabis is at least an order of magnitude stronger than in the past (and by implication much more dangerous). THC levels are allegedly 10, 20 or even 30 times higher than in the 1960s or 1970s. Although potency levels have risen in several countries (such as the US and UK), the actual increases have been much more modest (almost threefold from 1982 to 2007 in the US) and high-potency strains have always existed, as have various concentrated forms of cannabis. Furthermore, potency of seized samples was not tested before 1971, leaves were not distinguished from buds by testers at first, and samples from before the early 1980s (when testing and storage procedures were changed) were often degraded, making comparisons going that far back inaccurate. Non-representative sampling was also an issue.
        Since most of the increase happened after 2000, this legend can be considered an example of ostension (people have been making such claims as far back as the 1970s).

        A related claim, especially in the UK, is that the cannabidiol/THC ratio has decreased over the past few decades, resulting in a new and presumably more dangerous form of cannabis that never existed before (since CBD is thought to attenuate some of the negative side effects of THC). While there is little to no reliable data before 2005 on such ratios in the UK, making comparisons to the past impossible, the US data going back to the 1970s shows little to no clear trend, and there have always been strains with extremely low ratios. Ratios are also known to vary widely between strains and growing/harvesting methods.

        Some versions of this legend claim the potency change is due to “genetic modification,” a term which often evokes fear in the popular consciousness, but there is no hard evidence that anything other than selective breeding and enhanced growing techniques are behind the change. “Genetic modification” insofar as attempting to emphasize desirable traits by the practice of selective breeding is standard practice across many areas of farming, including the production of cannabis. It is likely that the term “genetic modification” is used by people who do not understand that selective breeding is not the same as genetic engineering.”

        I could provide quotes from yourself Peter from many newspaper comments arguing the same points as I do
        but it seems you were/are saying one thing for your followers and another for government,

        The main points are, cannabis today is not stronger than the parentage it was bred from, to claim that it is without proof is unfounded, there has always been strong cannabis the only difference from today and the past is increased availability,

        Cannabis does not “cause” mental illness rather it may reveal an underlying undiagnosed condition earlier than is natural due to use of cannabis, the claim that it does is also unfounded and relies on the logical fallacy
        of A occurs before B therefore A causes B,

        How do you explain the use of cannabis by people with real mental illness?, people with such illness do not and would not seek relief from cannabis if it made them feel worse or exacerbated their condition, they are mentally ill not stupid,

        As for telling the truth, I think I have, did you or did you not concede all of the main prohibitionist constructs
        used by prohibitionists and government in your legalisation document, I say you have and it is obvious to anybody whom has read your comments in newspapers and on your blog and CLEAR site will see that you have consistently and repeatedly debunked every prohibitionist construct that you then conceded in your
        proposal, you can not deny it it is all there for anybody that cares to look.

        Logical and reasonable argument you say, where is yours, all I see is a complete dismissal of my assertion
        with no argument reasonable or otherwise you just state that I am silly and a liar for daring to point out your obvious and undeniable hypocrisy, please provide the evidence you speak of concerning the danger of increased psychosis if you can, a link to a study or paper will do, if my assertions are false then all your previous and remarkably similar assertions debunking the constructs which you now appear to readily accept
        were false too, how can you sit there and deny it when you have spent this year encouraging your “comment warriors” to debunk the very propaganda you now agree with in your legalisation proposal!.

        I have done nothing but present the facts that you yourself have argued for in the recent past, how else can it be viewed but utter hypocrisy when you concede all the points you have previously vehemently argued against at every opportunity.

        Still no answer to a relevant question.

        “Start by telling the truth. Then you might have something useful to say. ”

        your arrogance is astonishing Mr Reynolds seems it is only balanced by your hypocrisy, you wouldn’t know the truth if it kicked you up the arse, you it must be said are the dishonest one in this conversation,
        I didn’t believe all the things that are said about you on other sites but I’m happy to say you have confirmed
        every one of them in your short dismissive reply, looks like a site full of sycophants and yes men and anybody whom disagrees or questions you in any way is belittled and dismissed and insulted automatically
        without any consideration given to what they are actually saying, you can deny your sickening hypocrisy
        all you like Peter but it is quite plain to even the most cursory review of your previous rhetoric set against
        what you have recently proposed to the government, worry not Peter I will not be returning to either of your sites as it is completely obvious that you cannot engage in honest debate without your bloated ego and rampant self importance getting in the way.

        more confused

        October 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      • You’re not blocked under your present alias on the CLEAR site. I suspect you’re a troublemaker that posts under multiple aliases and so you’ve probably been blocked by your IP address. You should try being honest, straightforward and posting under your own name.

        I am not going to indulge you in your long, boring and contradictary rant which is just a thinly disguised personal attack. Most of it is spent putting up prohibitionist nonsense so that you can knock it down. What is the point, purpose or value in that?

        If you don’t like the way I lead CLEAR then either resign or don’t join to begin with.

        You are a time waster and mine is far too valuable to spend on your games.

        Peter Reynolds

        October 24, 2011 at 5:06 pm

      • Prohibitionist nonsense of the type you presented to the government which you have opposed and contradicted
        in every previous post and comment on your blog/CLEAR site since you took over the LCA, you will not give an adequate reply to my post because you have none and it is completely obvious that you are a complete
        hypocrite and an liar Peter, I don’t have to prove anything as anybody whom takes the time and effort to read
        what you have written here and around the newspaper comment pages for the past year or so will find many examples of you debunking the very same propaganda that that you then presented to the government,

        The emphasis is on you to prove my assertions to be incorrect but I see you make no attempt whatsoever
        simply because you can not, I could if I was bothered go through your sites and comments in replies to newspaper articles and highlight the posts that completely contradict your current stance but what would be the point? you already know what a hypocrite you are and I suspect so do a lot of other people after your u turn
        on your previous assertions, just yesterday you posted a comment in which you said cannabis was “a gift from God” and was “relatively harmless”, use of cannabis does not increase the incidence of psychosis in the general population yet what you presented on the comment page was a falsehood created by selectively
        missing out part of the quote which states psychosis revealed(or allegedly caused) by use of cannabis only affects those genetically predisposed to having the illness

        “The only truth contained in this article is that use of cananbis increases the risk of psychosis and that such risk is greater amongst children and young people.”

        “Twenty-three patients admitted with acute psychosis who were cannabis positive on urinary screening were each matched, with respect to sex, with two psychotic controls who screened negatively for all substances. The lifetime morbid risk of psychiatric disorder was estimated among the first degree relatives of cases and controls, using RDC-FH criteria to define diagnoses, and Weinberg’s shorter method of age correction. The cases had a significantly greater familial morbid risk of schizophrenia (7.1%) than the controls (0.7%), while the risks of other psychoses, and of non-psychotic conditions were similar. The same pattern of familial risk was evident when the analysis was restricted to patients with DSM-III schizophrenia. The data suggest that the development or recurrence of acute psychosis in the context of cannabis use may be associated with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia.”

        extract from Schizophrenia Research
        Volume 15, Issue 3, May 1995, Pages 277-281

        P.K. McGuire P. Jones, I. Harvey, M. Williams, P. McGuffin, R.M. Murray

        Truth and facts eh Peter, pity both are absent from your assertions, when you cherry pick and selectively
        quote the facts to suit your own agenda you are just as dishonest as the prohibitionists and it is obvious.

        more confused

        October 25, 2011 at 2:56 pm

      • And your point is?

        Listen, whoever you are behind your silly little alias, you’re just another one of the small group of snide, bitter and very sad individuals that have plagued the cannabis community for far too long.

        People like you have been responsible for the failure of the campaign because of your negative, destructive and utterly pointless behaviour.

        However, I am happy to say that you and your sort are now irrelevant. This year, at last, we’ve turned away from the sort of idiotic behaviour that you demonstrate so very well.

        Take your personal unpleasantness and stay away from me. If you are a member of CLEAR then please resign.

        You have nothing of any value to say and you really are just wasting your time going round in circles with a big chip on your shoulder. Why don’t you find something constructive to do?

        I shall not respond to any further posts from you.

        Peter Reynolds

        October 25, 2011 at 3:53 pm

  4. How pathetic Peter, you shall not respond mostly because you are completely unable to, you seem to forget that everything you say and write on the internet is available to anyone whom cares to look, one does not have to go very far to find evidence of your hypocrisy, both here and on the CLEAR site you contradict yourself
    repeatedly, you stated in the Irish independent comment page

    β€œThe only truth contained in this article is that use of cananbis increases the risk of psychosis and that such risk is greater amongst children and young people.”

    I see you have no answer to that piece of bullshit, I have shown the actual quote above which says nothing about increased risk of psychosis for children or young people only for those with a genetic predisposition to psychosis which in laymens terms means cannabis does not cause psychosis in the general population and your continued assertion that it does while ignoring the real evidence to further your ridiculous agenda has harmed activism far more than you accuse others of, so in place of actually answering the questions and attempting to defend yourself you resort to name calling and running away, apparently I’m unpleasant
    for telling the truth pointing out your dishonesty and hypocrisy, I do not call you a hypocrite just to slag you off
    Peter I call you a hypocrite because you plainly are and anyone with a brain can see it.

    You can not deny it it is in black and white all over the internet. The fact that you did not even attempt to quote
    the statement from the abstract but presented it as your opinion and altered it to suit your agenda shows you are as dishonest as any propagandists, the reason you didn’t quote it directly and provide a link was because it contradicts you, I have provided the evidence that you are a liar and a hypocrite, just on one detail,
    I don’t call you a hypocrite and a liar for the sake of name calling, I am stating a fact.

    I would imagine the necessary requirements for a good activist would be honesty, accuracy and integrity,
    epic fail all round Peter, even the shithead journalists could see it which is perhaps why your legalise cannabis
    document didn’t receive a single mention in any newspaper or other media outlet, such a success that was Peter.

    you make great play about peoples anonymity on the internet, apparently in your eyes anonymity seems to negate or undermine the content presented, how so?, what difference would it make by knowing my name?
    the facts remain the same regardless of whom I am.
    it is apparent that you do not grow or even smoke cannabis, so what do you have to lose? what danger are you in from the establishment?, so easy to put your name out there when you have nothing to fear and are not actually involved in the area you campaign about, how prohibitionist of you to use peoples anonymity as a
    point of attack, so it is “idiotic behaviour” to point out how damaging you are to the activist cause, how can I damage activism being so anonymous and apparently irrelevant?, you are the one making an arse of yourself all over the internet regurgitating government propaganda to suit your agenda.

    Respond or not I have made my point and you have failed to address or refute any of it, epic fail once more,
    I wonder how you would fare under similar attack from a switched on prohibitionist considering your hypocrisy is so easily demonstrated with a cursory perusal of your rhetoric, just as well Mr Hitchens didn’t read your
    bullshit before he debated with you or he may have ripped you apart in a similar fashion, saying that it is quite obvious from your content here that you and he have more in common than not.

    more confused

    October 26, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    • I wonder if it has even crossed your sad, deluded brain what on earth would be the reason for the dishonesty, hypocrisy and all the ridiculous charges you level against me? What is this “agenda” that you think I have?

      Do you perhaps think I am an undercover operator as other fools and numpties have suggested? Or perhaps you are stupid enough to think that somehow I gain financially from my work?

      Look, I am very proud of my record and my position is very clear. I stand by everything I have written. I am very happy that everything I write can be found on the internet. All the answwers to the questions you ask of me are easily found.

      I don’t smoke or grow cannabis, eh? That statement in itself is conclusive proof of what an idiot you are.

      You are a sad, isolated fool with nothing better to do than this? I feel very sorry for you. Now in words of one syllable, go away, get lost, go waste your life somewhere else.

      If you continue to clog up my inbox you will be barred.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm

  5. “According to Hickman et al 2009, which is a review of existing published research therefore, by definition, not cherry picked, the chances of one incidence of schizophrenia or psychosis amongst cannabis users is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…”
    Peter Reynolds Clear

    a paper which posits, If cannabis causes schizophrenia……

    if?
    not when or will but if

    It does not !

    Come on Peter, in the space of one page you contradict yourself, yet I’m “silly” “absurd” “negative” “pointless” “paranoid” “illogical” “unreasonable” “dishonest” “boring” “contradictory” “snide” “bitter” “sad” “destructive”
    “idiotic” and yet “irrelevant”, I often find that trolls liars and hypocrites project their own faults onto their opponents, all of the above descriptors describe you perfectly, I have called you a liar and a hypocrite because it is plainly and demonstrably true, you however have behaved like a petulant child caught out
    bullshitting and have no answer except for more bullshit and holier than thou dismissive insult,
    with activists like you who needs prohibitionists, I’m mentally ill but nowhere near as delusional as you Peter.

    more confused

    October 26, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    • Yes, I’m fully aware of what the paper is about. I’ve discussed it in depth in a personal meeting with Dr Stan Zammit, one of the authors. There is nothing inaccurate at all in what I’ve written.

      I’m not surprised to hear that you’re mentally ill because it is clear in your writing, your obsessiveness and your lack of reason or common sense. You are the classic pointless, useless, meaningless troll and all those other terms which you reproduce above so faithfully.

      You are on a hopeless course with me. I have the paid for endorsement of more than 5000 members, more than any cannabis orgainsation in Britain has ever had. I speak the truth in the face of the prohibitionists and in the face of idiotic trolls like you. You will only make yourself more ill if you continue.

      Peter Reynolds

      October 26, 2011 at 5:34 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

%d bloggers like this: