Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Cancel All Foreign Aid, Get Out Of The EU And Look After My People!

with 4 comments

Port Talbot Steelworks

Port Talbot Steelworks

If it wasn’t for the miners and steelworkers of South Wales, the UK would now be a province of the Third Reich.  As it is, the disastrous  incompetence of  the last Labour government, topped off by out-of-touch toffs has brought us to the point where if we stay in the EU, we will be just a subsidiary of Frau Merkel’s Greater Germany.

Call them Keystone Cops, Bullingdon Club Blaggers or Carry on No 10, the loons that sit round the cabinet table in Downing Street have failed this country and should be sent packing back to their country seats. They have no idea what Britain really is and even less how to lead us into an uncertain future.

The ramifications of South Wales steel pervade our economy and our society.  It has made Britain great while Blair, Brown, Cameron and the self-serving political elite have diminished us in every way: financially, socially and morally.  We are a shadow of our former selves. We must wrest back control from these idiots.  They are an exact parallel with overpaid Premier League footballers: utterly selfish, egotistical to the ultimate, irresponsible of everything that does not benefit them directly and despised except of the power they hold. Footballers have their brains in their feet.  Our political leaders have their brains in their wallets, pension funds and the sinecures they will acquire when they leave office.

My grandfather was a South Wales steelworker.  It was career progress after he first went down the mines at age 14.  In 1938, my father was malnourished with rickets because he didn’t have enough food to eat.  It was only that year with the build-up to war that grandad had regular shifts and the family could be properly fed. Later my father won a scholarship to Oxford.  In the 80s and 90s he became one of the top commercial lawyers in the City and independently wealthy.  He was the archetypal boy from the valleys made good.  Such is the way that South Wales steel has built Britain and not just with girders, RSJs and driving piles for foundations.  It goes much deeper than that in ways that many of the Eton-educated wasters and ponces can never understand.

We must look after our own first.  It is ludicrous that we have thousand using foodbanks, we’re cutting benefits for disabled people and meanwhile we’re giving £12 billion a year away in foreign aid, £300 million to India which spends its own money on a space programme! We also pay £13 billion each year to the EU. We have to stop this madness.

Any independent nation of significance must have its own steel manufacturing capability. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world.  Save our steel industry by nationalising it.  It’s not socialism, it’s common sense.

Written by Peter Reynolds

April 6, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Personnel Changes At CLEAR.

with 4 comments

Roland Gyallay-Pap has resigned as managing director of CLEAR.

Roland contributed significantly to the development of CLEAR and was a valued colleague.  We are saddened by his departure and wish him well for the future.

Douglas Fraser has also left his position in charge of CLEAR’s IT systems and it will be no surprise that this is connected with the current offline status of the CLEAR website.  Such behaviour is regrettable but we have already regained control of our domain.  If the website itself is destroyed by malicious action we will simply have to make alternative arrangements.  Various other CLEAR accounts have also been hacked but we are steadily regaining control and expect everything to be resolved within the next day or so.

Written by Peter Reynolds

April 4, 2016 at 4:50 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

CLEAR Website

with one comment

I regret to inform you that the CLEAR website has been hacked in a malicious attack.

We are taking steps to regain control and further updates will be provided here

Written by Peter Reynolds

April 3, 2016 at 11:50 am

Posted in Uncategorized

LibDems: Correct On Cannabis Policy, Wrong On Scaremongering.

with one comment

The Liberal Democrats are doing great work on advancing the cause of cannabis law reform.  Their policy proposals are sensible and their arguments for change are irrefutable but they are wrong to buy into and sustain the myths and scaremongering that have dominated the cannabis debate for so long.

Cannabis does not cause psychosis.  Stronger strains do not present serious health risks.  Memory loss is not a significant issue and no issue at all in comparison to the health harms of alcohol or tobacco. Cannabis cannot be described as dangerous unless you also apply that word to hay fever remedies, over-the-counter painkillers  and energy drinks.  There is not and never has been any scientific evidence to support these myths.

Of course, we must be sensitive to people’s fears and concerns.  For more than 50 years the British people have been fed a stream of lies and exaggeration by the tabloid media.  The Home Office, right up to today, is engaged in a systematic and deliberate policy to mislead and misinform on cannabis.  Shocking though that fact is, this policy transcends successive governments and continues irrespective of ministers’ views.  It clearly emanates from dishonest and corrupt officials who are determined to pursue their own agenda, irrespective of truth or concern for the massive harms and cost of cannabis prohibition.

lamb 10 min stillNorman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP and health spokesperson, who is leading the party’s campaign, is a brave, sincere and conscientious politician. One of the few in Westminster that matches up to the high standards of probity and wisdom that we should be able to expect from all MPs.  Similarly, Nick Clegg, former leader, and Tim Farron, current leader, have spoken out strongly on the need to reform the law. Now is the time for them also to start telling the truth about cannabis, about how its dangers have been vastly exaggerated, how for adults, in moderation, it can actually be very beneficial and far preferable as a choice of relaxant to alcohol. Indeed, if people substituted cannabis for some of their alcohol consumption, it would be a public health revolution.  It would save the NHS billions and transform the health of our society.

The cannabis campaign will not succeed unless we tell the truth. We cannot compromise facts and evidence for the illusory belief that buying into the scare stories will somehow advance the cause.  We need to push back at the scaremongering, acknowledge there are risks but that they are extremely small.  They really only apply to use by children or to behaviour that is analogous to a ‘white cider drinker’.  Consume anything to excess, regularly, without a break, without regard to other aspects of life and it will cause harm but even then, cannabis will cause less harm than any other substance.

As for children, one of the main aims of reform must be to minimise underage use.  Even then, the scare story that cannabis is causing significant mental health problems amongst young people is untrue.  The Department of Health’s own data shows that in the last five years, there has been an average of just 28 episodes per year of care for ‘cannabis psychosis’ in young people.  28 individual tragedies but an insignificant problem in public health terms.

The misuse of the term ‘skunk’ is also unhelpful. The Channel 4 ‘Drugs Live’ debacle last year was  based on reckless, irresponsible overdosing of inexperienced users by a scientist who should know better.  All the time calling the cannabis was called ‘skunk’ when it is a matter of fact that it was silver haze as grown by Bedrocan, the Netherlands’ government producer of medicinal cannabis. Skunk is actually the name of one particular cannabis strain and not an especially strong one.  Cannabis is available in Britain that is twice, sometimes three times as potent as skunk but the word has been selected and promoted by the tabloid press because of its obvious, sensationalist, negative connotations.

Thank you to the Liberal Democrats for the fantastic work they are doing.  All we need now is a little adjustment and focus on truth rather than scare stories.

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 23, 2016 at 6:37 pm

‘Poppers Are Not Psychoactive’. The Arrogant Madness Of UK Drugs Policy.

leave a comment »

Crispin Blunt MP

Crispin Blunt MP

If you want something slightly less psychoactive than poppers, I suggest you try a crack pipe.

Seriously, poppers produce an instantaneous high as powerful and intense as anything I have ever known. Cannabis, alcohol, even cocaine are mild and gentle compared to the rush that you get from inhaling the vapour from a bottle of poppers.  Maybe crack or crystal meth are stronger.  I don’t claim knowledge at that extreme end of drugs experiences.

It’s well established fact that successive UK governments are dishonest and corrupt on drugs policy.  You cannot trust anything the Home Office says about drugs.  The reality of the policies of both Labour and Tory governments is that they maximise harm and cause enormous damage to our society as well as individuals.

The announcement today that poppers are to be excluded from the Psychoactive Substances Act because they are ‘not psychoactive’ is as ludicrous a statement as ever made by any government anywhere.  See minister Karen Bradley’s announcement here. 

The Psychoactive Substances Act is universally recognised as the most ridiculous and scientifically-illiterate legislation ever passed by Parliament – universal that is with the exception of the slippery fools that sit in the House of Commons. Most of them have no idea at all of what they are doing on drugs policy and their only concern is to appease the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the hysteria drummed up by the prohibition lobby.  However, when one of their own, Crispin Blunt, MP for Reigate, complains about his drug of choice being banned, in record time the Home Office has obtained fake scientific advice and reversed its decision to ban poppers. Meanwhile, benign, largely beneficial, mild and virtually harmless cannabis remains banned, even for those in desperate need to relieve their pain, suffering and disability.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think poppers should be banned.  They are known as a sex aid amongst gay men as they relax the anal sphincter, enabling easier ‘backdoor’ sex.  There’s a good argument that this helps to prevent injury and therefore infection but they are also an intense sexual stimulant.  I can confirm they are great fun for straight sex too.

I’m very pleased that Crispin Blunt will continue to have access to his drug of choice and I have no argument with him at all.  He is an MP who is on the record as supporting cannabis law reform, particularly for medicinal use.  It’s the sickening, dishonest and corrupt conduct of Home Office ministers that must be condemned.

I’d like to see the craven fools at the Home Office take a big whack off a bottle of poppers and then say they aren’t psychoactive.  Black is white and pigs fly over Marsham Street when it comes to drugs.

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 22, 2016 at 2:26 pm

CLEAR Withdraws Its Endorsement of UK CBD.

leave a comment »

uk cbd cannabinoid nutraceuticalsCLEAR can no longer endorse or recommend UK CBD as a supplier of CBD products.

This decision is made with regret but is unavoidable due to a number of problems which, despite our best efforts, have proved impossible to resolve.  Our endorsement was based on UK CBD’s ethical and quality standards but the position has changed and the directors of UK CBD have been unable satisfactorily to address our concerns.

Our main concern is that certain products marketed by UK CBD contain such high levels of the controlled drugs THC and CBN that we consider them to be unlawful.

One particular product, UK CBD 710 Cannabinoid Crystals, is being promoted as containing “over 4mg of THC”.  Anyone importing, supplying or in possession of this product risks criminal prosecution.

Potentially this product could destroy the whole CBD market.  If a prosecution was brought under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, it could result in all CBD products being regarded as psychoactive.

CLEAR strongly supports the developing CBD market as a legal alternative to high-THC products.  However, it is vital for the security of consumers that products comply with the law.

Written by Peter Reynolds

March 14, 2016 at 4:43 pm

A CLEAR Response To the Liberal Democrats’ Proposals For Cannabis Regulation.

leave a comment »

libdem Framework_for_cannabis thumbnail

CLEAR welcomes the Liberal Democrats’ proposals which can be seen here. We set out below a few comments which we intend to be constructive.

We represent more than 600,000 people who support cannabis law reform. Our own publication, ‘How to Regulate Cannabis in Britain’ is now in its second edition.

It is based on independent, expert research which we commissioned from the Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, published as ‘Taxing the UK Cannabis Market’.

Comments on ‘A framework for a regulated market for cannabis in the UK’

1. We support a cautious approach and agree that it is better to start with stricter regulation that could, based on experience, be relaxed at a later date if appropriate.

Spectrum of Cannabis Policy

Spectrum of Cannabis Policy

We reject the diagram ‘Exploring a spectrum of options for regulating cannabis’ which paints an inaccurate picture of the effects of a legal market. Evidence from all jurisdictions that have implemented reform does not support the equivalence of ‘social and health harms’ with ‘ultra prohibition’ and ‘commercial production’. It is absolutely clear that legally regulated commercial production is far less harmful than prohibition.

Essentially, instead of a ‘U’ shaped curve, we consider an ‘L’ shaped curve is more accurate.

2. The diagram indicates a fundamental objection to the commercial model implemented in Colorado, Washington and Oregon and the report explicitly rejects the Colorado model in favour of the Uruguay model.

We disagree with this. The Colorado model is a proven success with virtually no downsides. The Uruguay model is still a theory which is yet to be proven in practice. This conclusion in the report is therefore not evidence-based. This suggests that wider political or philosophical considerations have been allowed to trump existing evidence.

3. We are concerned about the undue weight given to restricting commercial enterprise. The UK is not a socialist economy and there is a danger of a ‘nanny-state’ attitude which we cannot support. We repeat the point that it seems wider political or philosophical considerations have been allowed to prevail over actual evidence. There needs to be a balance between a ‘cautious approach’ as in 1. above and over-regulation which will only result in a continuing criminal market. The UK is a market economy and if the legal market is too strict and rigid, the illegal market will flourish.

4. We have very grave concerns about the cannabis social club (CSC) model which provides significant opportunity for the corruption of those involved into major criminal enterprises with exploitation of both workers and customers. The establishment of such ‘clubs’ is entirely unnecessary given the other more controllable methods of supply and will only lead to diversion and perhaps active marketing of excessive production through criminal networks. In other words, CSCs are a golden opportunity for the emergence of ‘drug pushers’ and they undermine the whole purpose of cautious regulation.

5. We regard the recommendation not to permit the production and marketing of ‘edibles’ as an error. If the other recommendations making raw herbal cannabis legally available are implemented then this will inevitably lead to the production and marketing of unregulated ‘edibles’, undermining the whole purpose of regulation. Far better to learn from the mistakes already made in excessively potent ‘edible’ products and introduce appropriate regulations with reduced dosages.

If anything, ‘edibles’ need regulation far more urgently than the raw product because of the potential for very unpleasant overdosing. To abrogate responsibility for this is an extremely unwise proposal and inconsistent with the whole basis for a regulated market.

6. We would encourage a more positive and supportive approach to enable producer countries such as Morocco, the Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan to supply varieties of cannabis resin and hashish. Encouraging such trade under strict regulation will further undermine criminal activity and offers great potential for better relations and positive ‘soft power’ influence on these countries. We recognise the difficulties involved in this with regard to the UN conventions but consider it is a prize worth working towards.

7. For the same reasons set out above we consider that a refusal to regulate concentrates and vapouriser products undermines the whole purpose of a regulated market. Vapouriser products are almost certainly going to be an important component of the medical cannabis market. These nettles must be grasped. To avoid them is irresponsible.

8. We would argue for far more emphasis on harm reduction information, particularly about smoking and avoiding mixing cannabis with tobacco. As in 7. above, we would actively promote the choice of vapouriser products.

9. In principle we agree with the proposal for three levels of THC content and for minimum CBD content. However, there is no evidence to support the necessity for CBD content as high as 4%. The evidence suggests that levels of 1% or 2% adequately meet the desirable ‘entourage’ effects of CBD. Furthermore, at these levels, existing strains are available. Little consideration has been given to the practicalities of developing three new strains to meet the THC:CBD ratios proposed. To develop such strains and ensure they are stable and consistent is the work of several years, requiring significant investment and so undermines the ability to implement these proposals in timely fashion.

10. We consider that the ‘plain packaging’ proposal is unnecessarily restrictive in the UK’s market economy. We agree with child proof containers but would recommend that far more emphasis is given to content and harm reduction labelling. There is nothing to be gained from restricting the marketing and commercial enterprise of companies wishing to develop brands and packaging styles within strict regulations.

11. For reasons already set out we consider that the restrictions on exterior and interior retailer environments are oppressive and will be self-defeating. The UK is not accustomed to such overbearing and anti-business regulation. Existing pharmacies do not operate under such heavy restrictions and they make significant use of point-of-sale and merchandising techniques.

Overall, we welcome this document and the proposals it contains. One final point that is of significance is that clearly there was no ‘consumer’ representation on the panel and this is obvious in some of the tone and detail of the report. We recommend that account should be taken of consumer opinion in any future development of the proposals.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 216 other followers