Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Posts Tagged ‘debate

VIDEO. Peter Reynolds Speaks At The Oxford Union On Drugs Policy.

leave a comment »

‘This House Would Say No To Drugs’, The Oxford Union, 16th February 2017.

with 5 comments

pjr-deangelo-crop

Peter Reynolds, Stephen DeAngelo

On Thursday, 16th February 2017, the Oxford Union held a debate on the motion ‘This House Would Say No To Drugs’.

thwsntd-graphicI was honoured to be invited to speak against the motion in the august company of Paul Hayes and Stephen DeAngelo. Speaking for the motion were Andrew Ng, Assistant Commissioner Patricia Gallan and Shaun Attwood.

We successfully defeated the motion by approximately 120 votes to 90.  A video of the debate will be released shortly.  I reproduce my speech below.

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

These are the words of Harry Anslinger, who in 1930 was appointed the first ever commissioner of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics. 

And this is the exactly same standard of argument and evidence that we have in favour of drug prohibition today.

Anslinger went on to start the war on drugs 40 years before Richard Nixon invented the term.  His anti-cannabis crusade was based on racism, the suggestion that it caused madness, violence and depravity – yes, the same scare stories, myths and deceit that we still see published every day in the pages of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.  Indeed, exactly the same nonsense which every home secretary continues to trot out and on which our present prime minister bases UK drugs policy.

Don’t be in any doubt about it, the Home Office, under successive governments, has been engaged in the systematic deception of the British public.  It misleads, misinforms and repeatedly publishes bare faced lies about drugs and drugs policy and subverts every effort towards reform advocated by more enlightened politicians. 

In 2013, according to Norman Baker and Nick Clegg, Theresa May tried to falsify the international comparators report which showed that across the world harsh penalties make no difference to the level of drug use.  The facts simply don’t fit with her ideology.

And this idiocy pervades our society.  It is reflected in this motion which I oppose.  The premise of ‘This House Would Say No to Drugs’ is false from the very start.  It’s preposterous! We all say yes to drugs, every day, inevitably, in cocktails of medicines and recreational stimulants, in food, drink, in endogenous highs released through exercise and emotions, repeatedly, regularly, all of us, without exception, do drugs.

That our governments have seen fit to draw arbitrary lines as to which drugs are acceptable and which are not, which drugs that we can celebrate and which we will be locked up for, has nothing to do with evidence, science and, least of all, absolutely nothing to do with how harmful or dangerous they are. They are based on prejudice and thinking in 2017 that has advanced no further than Harry Anslinger in 1930. 

Sometimes these prejudices have strange echoes in the past. Coffee was banned in Mecca in 1511, as it was believed to stimulate radical thinking – the governor thought it might unite his opposition. What does that remind you of?

Often these lines are not arbitrary, they are based on vested interests. In 1777, Frederick the Great of Prussia also tried to ban coffee. He argued it interfered with the country’s beer consumption.  Before the first International Opium Convention in 1925 Egyptian cotton farmers successfully lobbied for cannabis to be banned as they feared the superior fibre crop of hemp.  Back to Harry Anslinger and he was in league with the timber barons who greatly feared the far better option of using hemp to make paper and the fledging oil industry which had just invented nylon, a synthetic alternative to the job that hemp fibre had done for thousands of years.  When Henry Ford invented the Model T he designed it to run on ethanol produced from hemp. He planted hemp on his own land for the purpose.  It’s no conspiracy theory to argue that the entire oil industry in predicated on the prohibition of cannabis, it’s just good, solid evidence.

Today, in the UK, prohibition of much safer substances like cannabis and MDMA is enforced to preserve the monopoly of legal recreational drugs that belongs to the alcohol industry – a drug that is at least a dangerous as heroin and causes far more misery and death in our society.  It’s no surprise when the UK alcohol industry spends £800 million every year on advertising that the media which enjoys that income supports the alcohol monopoly.

As if we didn’t have the clearest possible lesson from the prohibition of alcohol which gave birth to organised crime and demonstrated beyond any doubt that prohibition never works, it just makes the problem worse.  

The UK is more backwards, more disgraced, more shamed by a drugs policy that causes far more harm than it prevents, than almost any other first world country.

Prohibition is a fundamentally immoral policy.  If you remember one thing that I say today, please make it this. It sets law enforcement against the communities it is supposed to protect.  Being a police office is a noble and honourable calling.  Every society needs policing but drugs policy has perverted this profession.  The demand for what are deemed illicit drugs comes from society but instead of protecting us from danger, police action increases the dangers we are subject to.   The harder the police clamp down, the more the price of drugs rises, the more unscrupulous and violent the unregulated criminal trade becomes and the more contaminated, more concentrated and more dangerous are the drugs themselves.

In Amsterdam, there is no problem with Spice, the synthetic cannabinoid that is ravaging our streets and British prisons at present.  In sane, civilised society like California, Colorado or Washington, where adults can access safe, properly regulated cannabis, there is no Spice problem like we have in the UK. This disgusting, horrible product is the direct responsibility of the politicians who continue to pursue our ignorant anti-cannabis policy.  It is just one example of the great, immoral evil that prohibition causes.  And I ask you, if this crazy policy of prohibition cannot be enforced in prisons, then how do we expect to enforce it in wider society?

It is prohibition and drugs policy based on prejudice that destroys police and community relations.  It is current policy that means 70% of all acquisitive crime is caused by drug addiction – for which we send sick and poorly people to jail where they find easy access to more and nastier drugs.  This is the real madness that drugs cause.  It is the madness of deranged government ministers and their refusal to consider evidence or to resist pressure from their masters in Fleet Street.

What we need to do is say yes to a drugs policy that is designed to reduce harm and protect our communities.  Alcohol is promoted and so easily available as to be ridiculous, in every other shop on the high street, yet we control the access of children to alcohol and tobacco quite effectively.  But we abandon them to the street weed dealer who sells them muck grown by other children who have been trafficked from overseas and locked in hidden farms which are dangerous fire risks.  This is the shameful reality that our policies have produced.

Doctors freely prescribe anti-depressants, tranquilisers, highly toxic opioids such as tramadol, weird drugs for pain and epilepsy like gabapentin, which we don’t really understand at all.  Yet it is a criminal offence for a doctor to prescribe cannabis, a remedy that mankind has used safely and effectively for at least 10,000 years.

We mislead and misinform.  We encourage young people to go out and drink, yet we make ecstasy, MDMA, a drug far safer than even paracetamol, a class A substance , and we threaten people with years in jail just for handing a single dose to a friend.  It’s estimated that between two and ten million doses of MDMA are taken every weekend in the UK and we get about 50 deaths a year.  200 people die every year from paracetamol.  How much safer would MDMA be if the product was regulated with known strength and purity? It would probably be virtually harmless.

Now everyone is a victim of this drug war propaganda and the terrible effects of prohibition. Politicians, police officers, social workers, mothers and fathers have all been drenched in this propaganda from birth.  Many sincerely believe the rubbish they have been fed and they do all they can to pass on misguided ideas to the next generation.

We need to grow up, get a grip and drag Britain out of the dark ages. Drugs can cause harm but British drugs policy is a scourge on our society.  It damages the lives of millions and costs us billions.  Please oppose the motion, saying no to drugs is a nonsense.  Let’s say yes to a rational drugs policy.

If Your MP Isn’t On This List You Need to Have A Word. Next Steps After The Cannabis Debate.

leave a comment »

Westminster Hall. 12th October 2015

Westminster Hall. 12th October 2015

These Are The MPs Who Did Their Duty And Attended The Debate:

Lyn Brown, Labour, West Ham (Shadow Home Office minister)
Lisa Cameron, Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
Nigel Evans, Conservative, Ribble Valley (Chair of the debate)
Paul Flynn, Labour, Newport West
Cheryl Gillan, Conservative, Chesham and Amersham (Chair of the debate)
Sylvia Hermon, Independent, North Down
George Howarth, Labour, Knowsley
Rupa Huq, Labour, Ealing Central and Acton
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk
Peter Lilley, Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden
Caroline Lucas, Green, Brighton Pavilion
Anne McLaughlin, Scottish National Party, Glasgow North East
Paul Monaghan, Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Mike Penning, Conservative, Hemel Hempstead (Home Office minister)
Dr Dan Poulter, Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
Graham Stuart, Conservative, Beverley and Holderness
Andrew Turner, Conservative, Isle of Wight

It’s important to point out that four MPs were there because they had to be. Lyn Brown was there as a shadow Home Office minister.  Nigel Evans and Cheryl Gillan were there because they took turns to chair the debate. Mike Penning was there as the Home Office minister with responsibility for drugs policy.

If your MP didn’t attend the debate, particularly if you wrote asking them to, it is your right (I would argue it’s your duty) to complain and ask for an explanation.

There are very few reasonable excuses. If your MP is a government minister then he or she wouldn’t have been able to speak and may well have ministerial duties which would take priority.  Other than that, apart from sickness or some other emergency, if your MP failed to represent you then you need to write, ask for an explanation and what will they do instead to advance your views to government.

Excellent work was done in lobbying MPs before the debate.  I doubt that so many letters and emails have been sent to MPs on the subject before.  Now is not the time to be downhearted, now is the time to keep up the pressure.

You can find out who your MP is by entering your postcode on this website

You can find out your MP’s email address by looking their name up here

You can also Google your MP’s name which will lead you to their personal website and more contact details.

You can write by letter to your MP at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Most important is that you must include your full postal address and postcode to show that you are a constituent. Without this your email or letter will be ignored.

Either an email or a letter is fine but you might want to consider doing both!

We are not providing a template letter for reasons already explained. They simply do not work anymore.  The activities of mass lobbying groups like 38 Degrees have really stymied individual lobbying efforts because they have swamped MPs with ludicrous quantities of emails.  Consequently, to stand any chance of getting any attention your email needs to be clearly an individual, personal message.

Above all, please be polite.  Aggression or hostility will get you nowhere.  I met several MPs in the run up to the debate who were clearly surprised about how much correspondence they were getting but more than one mentioned that they were unmoved by people getting angry with them by demanding the right to use cannabis.

Asking questions is very important.  If you don’t get answers you’re entitled to write again and insist. So these are the points you need to make.  Incorporate them into an email or letter in your own words.

Five Point Plan.

  1. I was disappointed you didn’t attend the cannabis debate (after I wrote asking you to represent my views) Why were you not there?
  2. Nearly 250,000 people signed the petition to legalise cannabis.  That makes it the second largest petition ever and shows it is of huge public concern. As only 17 MPs turned up to the debate what is the point of the petition website?  What excuse do MPs have for ignoring this demonstration of democracy?
  3. A great deal of evidence was presented in the debate about the benefits of legalisation but none from the government about the possible harms of legalisation. Why? What evidence does the government have supporting its position?
  4. The only evidence the government has offered on the subject is the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) report from 2008.  This does not support present policy.  It says cannabis should be class C and that the criminal justice measures do not work and public health strategies are needed instead. Why is the government misrepresenting the evidence?
  5. Please will you write to government ministers on my behalf and get answers to these questions?

Please make sure you do this.  We will win this war against cannabis prohibition if we keep up sustained pressure.  There is no valid reason to oppose reform and no evidence that supports present policy.  We must keep up the lobbying effort.  Persistent, polite pressure will work. Please do your bit.  If we all work together we will prevail.

If you don’t get a response from your MP then please write again.  Don’t be shy about saying you ‘insist’ on a response but do remain polite.  If you still don’t get a response then make an appointment to see your MP at their constituency surgery.  It may be possible to have a CLEAR representative come with you if you ask in good time.  Email: clear@clear-uk.org

Please send any responses received to: mpletters@clear-uk.org

Written by Peter Reynolds

October 16, 2015 at 11:52 am

Posted in Consumerism, Politics

Tagged with , , ,

On The Eve Of The Cannabis Debate, CLEAR Meets Top Government Minister.

leave a comment »

letwin pjr

Oliver Letwin MP, Cabinet Office Minister. Peter Reynolds, President of CLEAR

Today, Friday 9th October, in advance of Monday’s cannabis debate in Parliament, I met with Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet Office minister with responsibility for the implementation of government policy.

According to The Independent, Oliver Letwin is “probably the most powerful person in the government after the Prime Minister and Chancellor”.  I first met with him back in July and he agreed to investigate the possibility of cannabis being available on prescription. When the cannabis debate was announced, I asked to see him again before the debate took place and he very generously arranged to see me just in time.

Monday’s debate will be the first time in nearly 50 years that MPs have had an opportunity to consider the subject.  Throughout the world, more and more governments are waking up to the huge damage that cannabis prohibition causes. Nearly all the harms around cannabis are not caused by cannabis itself but the laws against it. Prohibition of anything for which there is huge demand inevitably creates a criminal market. More than three million people in the UK choose to use cannabis regularly. We consume more than three and a half tons every day and spend more than £6 billion every year, all of which goes into the black economy.

Since the early 20th century, acres of newsprint have been devoted to telling us how harmful cannabis can be.  The alcohol industry fiercely guards its monopoly of legal recreational drug use.  It has enormous influence in government and its £800 million annual advertising spend give it great power over the media.

But the truth is becoming clear. Scientific evidence and real world experience show that compared to alcohol and even common painkillers and over-the-counter medicines, cannabis is very, very safe.  Concerns about mental health impacts are proven to be wildly overblown as cannabis use has escalated by many orders of magnitude but mental health diagnoses have remained stable. Increasingly, those responsible for drugs policy realise that abandoning this huge market to criminals only makes things worse. Criminals don’t care who they sell to or what they sell, so children and the vulnerable become their customers and their product becomes low quality, contaminated, often very high strength ‘moonshine’ varieties.

A Win Win Proposal To The UK Government On Cannabis.

Perhaps the most pernicious effect of cannabis prohibition is the denial of access to it a medicine. On this, Mr Letwin has been consulting with other ministers in the Department of Health and the Home Office.  He says he is now convinced that there is a very positive future for cannabinoid medicines. As a result, I hope to be meeting again shortly with George Freeman MP, the Life Sciences Minister. I led a delegation of medicinal cannabis users to meet with him at the beginning of this year. Mr Letwin has indicated to me that it is Mr Freeman’s office that needs to deal with this, so I am hopeful of real progress in the near future.

Mr Letwin warned me that the debate itself will not produce any change in the law and I acknowledge this but it is part of the process that will eventually get us there. I suggested that there is a win win option that could be implemented very easily and quickly. There is huge pressure on the government to act but also great inertia and resistance to change from the old guard. I proposed that if cannabis could be moved out of schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations it would enable doctors to prescribe it and researchers more easily begin the task of developing and testing new products.

The great benefit this would offer to the government is that it would be seen to be responding to the evidence, being progressive and keeping up with the worldwide movement towards reform. However, for the more conservative thinkers, the ‘tough on drugs’ mantra would remain in place. Cannabis would still be a class B drug and all the same penalties would remain in force.  Both sides of the debate could see this move as a success for their argument.

So we all look forward to the debate. As is normal practice, no government ministers will participate but I expect a Home office minister will give some sort of response. We are making progress.  Revolution is not the British way but I do think we can continue with guarded optimism that our message is getting through and the direction of travel is certain.

Written by Peter Reynolds

October 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm

The Weak And Ineffectual Response Of Most MPs To The Cannabis Debate.

leave a comment »

CLEAR has been mobilising its members as never before to lobby their MPs in advance of the cannabis debate on 12th October.

There are honourable exceptions but most responses have been unhelpful, dismissive and have completely failed to deal with the arguments put forward.  Most MPs are indoctrinated with the false reporting churned out by the press, scared stiff of the subject and not prepared to look any deeper.

It is a terrible indictment of these people, each of whom costs us about £250,000 per year in salary and expenses. Most simply do not do their job properly, certainly not in the interests of or representing their constituents, mainly they just pursue their own political ambitions and interests. They cannot be bothered to deal with the cannabis issue.

Usually, from both Tory and Labour MPs, the responses parrot the official Home Office line. Most are too lazy to inform themselves about cannabis and the facts and evidence around current policy which costs the UK around £10 billion per annum.  This vast sum comprises a futile waste of law enforcement resources and the loss of a huge amount of tax revenue.  It provides funding to organised crime, including human trafficking, and does nothing to prevent any health or social harms around cannabis.  In fact, if anything it maximises these harms, endangering health, communities and the whole of our society by enforcing a policy which is based not on evidence but on prejudice. Source: http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf

Paul Flynn MP

Paul Flynn MP

As Paul Flynn MP, said in the House on 14th September:

“There is [a debate] in a fortnight’s time, on a subject that terrifies MPs. We hide our heads under the pillow to avoid talking about it, but the public are very happy to talk about it in great numbers. That subject is the idea of legalising cannabis so that people here can enjoy the benefits enjoyed in many other countries that do not have a neurotic policy that is self-defeating and actually increases cannabis harm.”

Source: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2015-09-14a.185.0#g194.0

Below I reproduce a reply from one MP. This is the standard MP line on cannabis.  The words may vary slightly but essentially this is the response that the Home Office enforces and, irrespective of party, these are the disingenuous statements that MPs hide behind.

“I believe cannabis is a harmful substance and use can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological conditions. I therefore do not support the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis at this time.

I welcome that there has been a significant fall in the numbers of young people using cannabis, and the number of drug-related deaths among under-30s has halved in a decade and I would not want to see this progress undermined.”

Stating cannabis is harmful is meaningless and and an evasion of the question. Anything can be harmful. Such an assertion only has any meaning when in comparison to other substances.  In fact, cannabis is relatively benign, even when compared to many foods.  It is much less harmful than energy drinks, junk food, all over-the-counter and prescription medicines and, of course, tobacco and alcohol.  Compared to these two most popular legal drugs, cannabis is hundreds of times less harmful. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/

Prof Les Iversen

If cannabis can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological conditions, what are they and how likely is cannabis to bring them on compared to other substances? In fact, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, whose publications are often presented as evidence of cannabis harms, states unequivocally

 “There is no evidence that cannabis causes specific health hazards.”

Source: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/cannabis.aspx

There is a reported fall in cannabis use from the British Crime Survey.  However, the Association of Chief Police Officers reports ever increasing incidents of cannabis cultivation and there has been a massive surge in the use of ‘legal highs’ or novel psychoactive substances.  Without exception, these are far more harmful than cannabis and their very existence is the product of government policy.  In places such as Holland and the US states that have legalised, there is no problem at all with such substances.

As for “drug-related deaths”, this is classic disinformation.  What does it have to do with cannabis? Are our MPs so badly informed that they cannot distinguish between different drugs?  Sadly, in many cases the answer is yes. Even so, this is a false claim.  The latest figures show an increase in the number of drug poisoning deaths to the highest level since records began in 1993.  So much for the claimed “progress”.  Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_414574.pdf

Just recently MPs have started to address the question of medicinal use, almost certainly because of the rising clamour from people in pain, suffering and disability.  Also because the UK is now a very long way out of step with the rest of Europe, the USA, Canada, Israel, Australia and most ‘first world’ countries. Source: http://clear-uk.org/static/media/PDFs/medicinal_cannabis_the_evidence2.pdf

“I am aware that one of the issues raised is around enabling the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. I know that cannabis does not have marketing authorisation for medical use in the UK, and I understand that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency can grant marketing authorisation to drug compositions recognised as having medicinal properties, such as in the case of Sativex.”

A marketing authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is a deliberate diversion from the issue.  Medicines do not have to have an MHRA marketing authorisation.  Doctors can prescribe any medicine, licensed or unlicensed, as they wish.  However, since 1971, medical practitioners have been specifically prohibited from prescribing cannabis on the basis of no evidence at all except minsters’ personal opinions. Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3997/made.

Applying for an MHRA marketing authorisation costs over £100,000 as an initial fee and clinical trials have to be conducted at a cost of at least the same again.  Instead, minsters could simply move cannabis from schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to schedule 2 alongside heroin and or, more logically, to schedule 4, alongside the cannabis oil medicine Sativex. This would place the whole question of the use of cannabis as medicine in the hands of doctors and not in the politically motivated hands of Westminster.  Isn’t that where it should be?

your-country-needs-youThis is the most important short term objective of the cannabis campaign – move cannabis out of schedule 1.  Not only would this enable doctors to prescribe Bedrocan medicnal cannabis as regulated by the Dutch government but it would mean research could start in earnest. The restrictions presently in place on cannabis, because it is schedule 1, make research very expensive, complicated and are a real deterrent.

If you haven’t lobbied your MP on the cannabis debate yet, you still have time to.  If you can, get along and see them in a constituency surgery. Full guidance is provided here but you must act now: http://clear-uk.org/guidance-on-how-to-lobby-your-mp-for-the-cannabis-debate/

Most MPs run surgeries on Fridays so that means you have just this coming Friday, 2nd October and the following 9th October.

Please at least ensure you write to your MP.  This is our moment and we are having an impact. Make sure you do your bit.

Guidance On How To Lobby Your MP For The Cannabis Debate.

leave a comment »

debate FB sizeIn the UK the only democratic power you have is through your MP.

The arcane nature of our Parliament and the unaccountability of MPs makes that sad and depressing but it is reality.

The only alternative routes to power are to spend millions on advertising and PR or to chance on gaining the fickle and unreliable support of the popular media.

So, it is to your MP you must turn if you want to exercise influence in the cannabis debate.  However poorly informed, bigoted or slave to the media your MP is, your role is to do what you can to inform and persuade. It is your responsibility to make your MP do their job and represent your views.

Your Last Chance To Meet Your MP Is Friday, 9th October.

The debate takes place on Monday 12th October in Westminster Hall. That means you must write, telephone and write and telephone again.  Your MP works for you.  You have a right to ask for their support and get a proper answer, not some standard, doublespeak brush off, drafted by the Home Office. Don’t accept such a response.  

You can find out who your MP is by entering your postcode on this website

You can find out your MP’s email address by looking their name up here

You can also Google your MP’s name which will lead you to their personal website and more contact details.

You can write by letter to your MP at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Most important is that you must include your full postal address and postcode to show that you are a constituent. Without this your email or letter will be ignored.

Either an email or a letter is fine but you might want to consider doing both!

Write in your own words.  MPs are now wise to what they call ‘campaign emails’.  The large number of campaigns by groups such as 38 Degrees have really swamped MPs with repetitive correspondence.  It doesn’t work to send what is clearly a template or automatically generated email.  You will just be ignored.  Many MPs actually warn against this now on their website.

So, in your own words, make these points:

1. Legal regulation of cannabis will be much safer for everyone than the present criminal market.
2. £6 billion every year is spent on cannabis and it all goes to criminals.
3. I want to see cannabis available to adults only through licensed outlets with proper labelling and quality control.
4. I want to see cannabis taxed so that, as in Colorado, we can invest millions more in schools and hospitals.
5. Many people need access to medicinal cannabis for which there is now strong scientific evidence.
6. Please will you support and vote for legal regulation of cannabis?

You can link to these four pieces of evidence in your email or letter

Cannabis is 114 times safer than alcohol:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/

No link between adolescent cannabis use and later health problems:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-adb0000103.pdf

‘Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence’:
http://clear-uk.org/static/media/PDFs/medicinal_cannabis_the_evidence2.pdf

Taxation of cannabis market net annual gain to the UK economy up to £9.5 billion:
http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 17, 2015 at 11:45 pm

Cannabis Debate On 12th October 2015. Now Is The Time To Contact Your MP.

with 2 comments

Paul Flynn MP

Paul Flynn MP

Today the House of Commons Petitions Committee agreed to hold a debate in response to the cannabis petition. It will take place on 12th October 2015 in Westminster Hall and it will be led by Paul Flynn, the veteran MP for Newport West, who has been campaigning for cannabis law reform for more than 25 years.

Four years ago this month, Paul was instrumental in the launch of the CLEAR Plan ‘How To Regulate Cannabis in Britain‘. He sponsored our launch in the Jubilee Room of the Houses of Parliament and gave the keynote speech. We have already made contact with him to offer any support we can. What distinguishes CLEAR from other groups is that we support our campaign with independent, expert research, detailed proposals for regulation based on public consultation and analyses of existing scientific evidence and studies. We anticipate that the evidence provided by these three key publications will be crucial to informing the debate.

htrcbTaxing the UK Cannabis Market http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf
How To Regulate Cannabis In Britain http://clear-uk.org/static/media/uploads/2013/10/CLEAR-plan-V2.pdf
Medicinal Cannabis: The Evidence http://clear-uk.org/static/media/PDFs/medicinal_cannabis_the_evidence2.pdf

Now, even if you have done so recently, is the time to contact your MP and ensure he or she has copies of these documents. Crucially, make it very clear that you expect them to attend the debate and you want them to represent your views. If you can, arrange to meet your MP at their constituency surgery to explain in person what you want them to say.

You can find out who your MP is by entering your postcode on this website

You can find out your MP’s email address by looking their name up here

You can also Google your MP’s name which will lead you to their personal website and more contact details.

You can write by letter to your MP at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

mcte front coverWrite To Your MP

Most important is that you must include your full postal address and postcode to show that you are a constituent.  Without this your email or letter will be ignored.

Either an email or a letter is fine but you might want to consider doing both!

Write in your own words.  MPs are now wise to what they call ‘campaign emails’.  The large number of campaigns by groups such as 38 Degrees have really swamped MPs with repetitive correspondence.  It doesn’t work to send what is clearly a template or automatically generated email.  You will just be ignored.  Many MPs actually warn against this now on their website.

So, in your own words, make these points:

1. Legal regulation of cannabis will be much safer for everyone than the present criminal market.
2. £6 billion every year is spent on cannabis and it all goes to criminals.
3. I want to see cannabis available to adults only through licensed outlets with proper labelling and quality control.
4. I want to see cannabis taxed so that, as in Colorado, we can invest millions more in schools and hospitals.
5. Many people need access to medicinal cannabis for which there is now strong scientific evidence.
6. Please will you support and vote for legal regulation of cannabis?

You can link to these four pieces of evidence in your email or letter

Cannabis is 114 times safer than alcohol:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/

No link between adolescent cannabis use and later health problems:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-adb0000103.pdf

‘Medicinal Cannabis:The Evidence’:
http://clear-uk.org/static/media/PDFs/medicinal_cannabis_the_evidence2.pdf

Taxation of cannabis market net annual gain to the UK economy up to £9.5 billion:
http://clear-uk.org/media/uploads/2011/09/TaxUKCan.pdf

Written by Peter Reynolds

September 8, 2015 at 6:07 pm