Cannabis grown to treat bad back (From Oxford Mail)

"Police found 135 plants, £2,630 in cash and hundreds of grams of skunk"......
...."he used cannabis to self-medicate for a chronic bad back and, although he could have sold on any excess, he had not yet done so"......

I smell a rat......and a judge who appears to have missed a few pertinent details.

A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

mheenan wrote:
A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

Who pulled your chain so hard. You sound like a ranting fanatic.

It always nice to read a story that's not all doom and gloom. Well done to all at the Oxford Mail. You've made my day.

Although I am pleased that this man was not sent to prison immediately it does put him in the unenviable position of having to choose between pain or prescribed drugs that often have unpleasant and risk side-effects and will cost the NHS, or risk jail by growing more cannabis.

I think the judge was correct in saying Andrew Walters was no a "criminal" - after all, he had no victims and put nobody at risk - so I have to ask why he was in court in the first place: the answer is bad law that needs to be changed.

Well done Judge Eccles and well done the custody sergeant too.

These are merciful and humane actions in the face of an irrational and evil law which criminalises millions of citizens, wastes billions in taxpayers' money and prevents use of what science now proves is one of the safest and most effective medicines for a wide range of conditions.

Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) published independent research on 14th September 2011 that shows a cannabis tax and regulate regime would provide a net gain to the UK exchequer of £6.7 billion per annum as well as reducing all health and social harms.

The only thing that keeps the present absurd status quo in place is weak politicians corrupted by Big Booze and the unlawful GW Pharma monopoly of medicinal cannabis.

Go to the CLEAR website for full details: www.clear-uk.org

mheenan wrote:
A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

I'm not condemning the use of cannabis for medical use, I've known a few people that have used it, with remarkable effects.
What I was pointing out in my original comment was the quantity of plants, and cash in the property.
If somebody is propagating for personal use, it's just a guess, but I'd say 135 plants is a little excessive?
I've recently seen a TV programme about the growing of cannabis "legally" in the USA, and it's big business, $1.6Billion a year if I remember correctly.
As a result, each State that has approved it, is raking in Millions of dollars in revenue, crime is down, and obviously there's far less dodgy drugs.
Did you know it's being grown legally in London for use in cancer drugs?
I'm all for legalising and regulating its cultivation, sale and use, I've seen the benefits, the UK should take note of what's happening in California.

Cannabis is a plant. Why would you want a regulated system for a plant? Just let people grow their own, if a market comes to fruition as a result of their being more cannabis on the market then fine. But instead of talking about money, why not start trying to promote a new equality initiative? Equal rights for all drug users. Lets start concentrating on what drives the government to be so against such a diverse group of people. Until we end government interference into our private lives, we'll not see change. I wan't my freedom of thought back. My body is my country. What goes on in its borders should be entirely up to me. I thought CLEAR was closing down due to dubious circumstances as well. Could that be true?

CLEAR is now the largest, membership based, democratically run, drug reform group Britain has ever seen.

As more and more people see the horrendous injustice and ridiculous waste of public money that cannabis prohibition causes, so our membership continues to rise every day.

We are not a group just for those who use cannabis but for everyone who recognises the stupidity of this law.

Join us and add your name to the list of those determined to make the truth about cannabis CLEAR.

www.clear-uk.org

welshstoner wrote:
Cannabis is a plant. Why would you want a regulated system for a plant? Just let people grow their own, if a market comes to fruition as a result of their being more cannabis on the market then fine. But instead of talking about money, why not start trying to promote a new equality initiative? Equal rights for all drug users. Lets start concentrating on what drives the government to be so against such a diverse group of people. Until we end government interference into our private lives, we'll not see change. I wan't my freedom of thought back. My body is my country. What goes on in its borders should be entirely up to me. I thought CLEAR was closing down due to dubious circumstances as well. Could that be true?

By regulating it there would be controls over the varieties of plant being grown, who grows it, where it's sold, and to whom.
Without some level of control there would still be criminal elements profiting, and producing dodgy varieties, and some idiots using it to excess, as they do at the moment, and being a nuisance to society.

Another small ripple as the tide slowly changes.. well done judge. All the lies of the last 60 years are finally being outed.

Regulation is the only rational way forward. The hopeless hippies who cry "it's just a plant" are deluding themselves if they believe there will ever be the sort of revolution they call for. That is not the way the real world works.

Responsible cannabis users recognise the fears and concerns of non-users and voluntarily suggest methods of regulation which will reassure the community as a whole.

CLEAR has published it's own proposals for a regulated system based on independent, expert research which can be seen here:

http://clear-uk.org/
a-clear-plan-for-the
-regulation-of-canna
bis-in-britain/

I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish Dil. If cannabis possession and production was legal then there would be no Criminal enterprise. The Criminals(what constitutes a criminal?)would become as normal as the man mentioned in the above article. As for a regulated market, get real. The buyers themselves will be able to regulate the market. People would be able to buy from friends and people that they trust and not from the unscrupulous suppliers who sold "grit" weed not that long ago. We could leave it to coffee shop owners to advertise the CBD, THC content of the products that they sell. What you're asking for is more government legislation. How long do you think it would take to put that into practice? The misuse of drugs act could work perfectly well if "all" drug use was included in it. That would include alcohol and nicotine. We could then, as a nation, come to a better consensus about what is use and what is misuse? People deserve their human rights back. Let's concentrate on that first. I'm sorry Peter Reynolds but I don't believe what you say about CLEAR. People are that unhappy with your approach that they're asking for your resignation. As for democratic. You ban anyone who speaks against you from the party. You also ban them from posting on the CLEAR web site and the Facebook page. That, I'm sorry to say is not democratic. In fact, it's more a political party run by a right wing radical than anything else. I can't wait to see the books.

This story has good and not so good elements about it. I agree with the concern in regards to the large amount of cash found at the property. I am happy to finally read that a judge has shown leniency towards a, supposedly, medicinal cannabis user. However this is not the norm as most other judges would have banged him up. The trouble is we have no concrete regulatory guide lines in place. We are finally beginning to see a certain amount of progress in regards to the use of cannabis as a medicine, but without any firm rules and laws in place we are heading for a mess, hopefully not as bad as what is happening in the US but in a similar fashion. I just wish our cowardly government would have the balls to take this by the horns and put in place a full regulated system to protect those that use cannabis to help improve their quality of life and not have to rely on often expensive, and in most cases more harmful to ones health, pharmaceuticals.

I would like to reply to Dillgaff2010 who expresses surprise that such a large number of plants could be for personal medical use. Well, speaking as a medical user I think I can explain this. When used for back pain and muscular spasm many users prefer to make a rubbing ointment to put on the skin. This enables one to gain relief whilst remaining very clear-headed. The only drawback is that it lakes a large amount of Cannabis flowers to make the ointment, an ounce will yield only a small tub-full which is soon used up if you have to use it on a large area. Medical users who supply themselves will often grow enough to last them for a few months, because one must wait for the plants to grow, and if there is a crop failure (they can often be ruined by pests) then an "emergency supply" will be a very good thing to have.
*
I would also like to echo others who have said how refreshing it is to hear about a Judge being so fair and open minded.

TAKES not lakes. LOL auto-spellcheck strikes again ;-)

I can't understand why this chap was at court in the first place because according to CLEAR cannabis was effectively decriminilised last month! Are you saying you were wrong about that now Peter?

If Andrew Walters reads this, please would he contact me to be interviewed for the CLEAR website?

info@clear-uk.org

it is good to see a Judge that can think for a change, he must be a brave man to go against the back room prohibitionists that make other Judges afraid to show any understanding about cannabis, he also better be ready for the Daily Mails campaign against him . this will make them rant and rave big time

The new sentencing guidelines come into force on 27th February. We can expect to see an immediate change and in the longer term a loss of interest by the police and CPS in pursuing individuals in possession of or growing small amounts for their own use, particularly if for medcinal reasons.

Peter-Reynolds wrote:
The new sentencing guidelines come into force on 27th February. We can expect to see an immediate change and in the longer term a loss of interest by the police and CPS in pursuing individuals in possession of or growing small amounts for their own use, particularly if for medcinal reasons.

Wow that's only 2 weeks away! Once it has settled down we should see that medical users are no longer raided and persecuted. Wow we will be able to sleep in our beds safe in the knowledge that the front door won't be kicked in in the middle of the night.

Not that is Progress! Well done Judge for implementing the new guidelines before the due date, pity Winston Matthews didn't have the same judge.

Nice to see you still love to censor things Peter! Thanks for deleting/reporting my post. You are wrong infact you could not be any further from the truth Peter, I would suggest anyone who does want to know the truth about these sentencing guidelines pop over to the release website and get it from suitably qualified individuals such as lawyers instead of power hungry fantasist's such as CLEARly deluded!

It's a great shame that Winston Matthews didn't have the same Judge, or the same result as the gentleman above. He's yet another medical users that's been jailed for his beliefs. CLEAR would like to tell you they're fighting for the rights of people like Winston, and yet it promotes a regime of Taxation and government interference. Who in their right minds would support that?!

What utter tosh from Peter Reynolds, if people really want to know about the CLEAR party then they should google 'dopefiend podcast 302' this will tell you all about the person who claims to represent the views of cannabis users in the UK

Paul Flynn MP has vowed never to meet with Reynolds or CLEAR again

Release have condemned the announcement by CLEAR that cannabis has been decriminalised in the UK

As a political party CLEAR are dead and buried, 17 MP's have dropped Reynolds from their facebook friends list because of his blog rantings

@Brian_C

instead of trying to sound like as big a smug git as possible why don't you try reading the article next time:

http://clear-uk.org/
effectively-growing-
your-own-has-been-de
criminalised-we-are-
free/

It definitely suggests that this applies if you are cultivating 9 plants or less, the man in this article was caught with 15x that number.

Not that this is new, my first growing offence was for 8 plants flowering, with 162 cutting ready to go.. The magistrates advice "be more careful Mr Abbott, don't get caught again"

£200, fine..

Strangely you can grow Papaver
somniferum.. Don't that make the law an ****

D'Arche wrote:
@Brian_C

instead of trying to sound like as big a smug git as possible why don't you try reading the article next time:

http://clear-uk.org/

effectively-growing-

your-own-has-been-de

criminalised-we-are-

free/

It definitely suggests that this applies if you are cultivating 9 plants or less, the man in this article was caught with 15x that number.

I'm sorry but at what point did anyone become free D'Arche. Nothing has been decriminalised fullstop. You're foolish to think otherwise. As you can tell in the above article. The man was arrested. ARRESTED! That's not decriminalisation in action. That's the law.

Welshstoner, Brian C and D Bell are absolute idiots. It is because of the behaviour of fools like these that there has been no progress in ending cannabis prohibition. These idiots are the unacceptable face of cannabis whereas Peter Reynolds and CLEAR have advanced the campaign more effectively than ever before.

Welshstoner, Brian C and D Bell, you should examine your consciences if you're not too stoned to do so. It's because of people like you that Winston Matthews, Andrew Walters and other medicinal users remain in pain with no legal access to their medicine. You should grow up or take your nasty, aggressive behaviour elsewhere. You are enemies of a cause that many care about very deeply.

RELEASE - a real legalisation organisation run by real professionals with real experience have a completely different analysis of the new sentencing guidelines than the two-bit CLEAR.

http://www.release.o
rg.uk/comment/375-se
ntencing-guidelines-
for-cannabis-offence
s

It is a shame that a self appointed 'expert' Mr Reynolds is in a position to spread ill-informed misinformation and lies. It is also a shame that CLEAR have chosen a person who has written some quite offensive racist and homophobic blog posts to be their leader.

Listen to Dopefiend podcast 302 if you are unaware of Mr Reynold's personal views, and the way that he censors and bans anyone who dares question his past, his motives, his actions or his policies.

I'm sorry Jack, I see I've hit a nerve and it was not intended. At no point have I said that medical or non-medical cannabis users should not have access to a plant. In fact, I'm of the opposite opinion and think everyone should have the right to grow their cannabis without any interference from the law. I've been friends with Winston for some time now and I appreciate the stand he's made for any and all cannabis consumers. I will be writing to my local MP and Winston himself to show him some much needed support. However, as Winston wanted nothing to do with Peter Reynolds or CLEAR, and because of their(PR, CLEAR) actions against other cannabis activists I don't believe that anything I've forwarded is going to hurt your so called "Cause" one bit. CLEAR wants Taxation and licencing for home grows. I do not. Also, I would not support any party, who's leaders tackle is on open show for anyone to see. To finish, how have you managed to confuse what I'm writing here, with Winston not being able to get cannabis medicine. That's the government you idiot. That's nothing to do with me.

When I first read this article I wept tears of joy for the progress that has been made. Now I am reduced to tears of shame when people who should be celebrating have reduced this to a public slanging match.

No, you're the idiot Welshstoner. Can't you see the damage you're doing for the sake of a petty, small minded personal vendetta?

CLEAR has done more to promote the truth about cannabis than ever before in the UK. Put your silly personal grudges aside.

Jack Stanley Evans wrote:
No, you're the idiot Welshstoner. Can't you see the damage you're doing for the sake of a petty, small minded personal vendetta?

CLEAR has done more to promote the truth about cannabis than ever before in the UK. Put your silly personal grudges aside.

What has CLEARLY MENTAL done other than remove 17 MP's from the pro cannabis debate, insult dozens of medicinal cannabis patients, insult ill people over their race and/or sexual orientation? Reynolds knows he must go it's folk like you Jack encouraging this racist bigoted individual to stay that are damaging the cause! He has even went as far as promoting untruths!

The damage has already been done, and you know that as well as I do Jack. I've no vendetta, I just know right from wrong.

It's interestingthat although the courts have dealt with this as fairly as they can, either this newspaper of the police publicity department have still tried to sensationalise it with such phrases as "Hundreds of Grammes". So lets analyse that... 200 Grammes is just over 7 ounces which is not really a great amount of plant material, just look at how much your box of tea bags weighs and work it out from there. It isn't really going to last very long for someone in chronic pain, luckily the court were able to see this. The huge sums of money associated with even small quantities of this plant are due solely to prohibition.

Hi, ILove. I agree. Freedom to Farm for all.

1Love, you're right. We have to face the facts though "Freedom to Farm for all." isn't going to happen. What I expect to see is strict regulation and we might as well accept it and get on with it. Then, in time, when the safety of the plant becomes obvious the law will relax further.

Jack Stanley Evans wrote:
1Love, you're right. We have to face the facts though "Freedom to Farm for all." isn't going to happen. What I expect to see is strict regulation and we might as well accept it and get on with it. Then, in time, when the safety of the plant becomes obvious the law will relax further.

Mr Pessimistic is on a roll. Fair Play. If the misuse of drugs act was changed, so as to allow people to grow at home(production),the
n what I say would be perfectly feasible. People, (that's everyone in the UK, between me and you)will be able to grow for themselves. It wouldn't take a genius to work that out. However, it is my understanding, that what you want is for people to buy licences for home grows whilst at the same time allowing the police access to those same grows so as to regulate their size. By thinking this way you are aiming to put more pressure on users and not less. There was a time when people could choose for themselves, with your approach, people will have to pay for the right to grow a plant whilst allowing the law into their private home. I don't want that for anything. Keep the police away from my private life. It's mine. Don't make out like I'm talking rubbish. I'll debate with you all day.

1LoveUnity wrote:

Peter-Reynolds wrote:
The new sentencing guidelines come into force on 27th February. We can expect to see an immediate change and in the longer term a loss of interest by the police and CPS in pursuing individuals in possession of or growing small amounts for their own use, particularly if for medcinal reasons.

Wow that's only 2 weeks away! Once it has settled down we should see that medical users are no longer raided and persecuted. Wow we will be able to sleep in our beds safe in the knowledge that the front door won't be kicked in in the middle of the night.

Peter Reynolds doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a newcomer to the cannabis movement and so he has to be a fast learner but in the meantime he just makes it up as he goes along. I read a very informative article yesterday concerning his swinging to and fro unsubstantiated statements concerning cannabis sentencing laws on a campaign website to get Peter Reynolds to resign - he's a total blunderer. http://www.campaign.
mondialvillage.com/r
elease/index.html

┄So
lets analyse that... 200
Grammes is just over 7
ounces which is not really a
great amount of plant
material┄

Yep it may sound like that, but with street retail running at £10 a gram (should be Hi-grade, but often not), its a expensive habit to run if you don't grow.. Btw the poster above should know turning it into oil makes it a class A drug

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

mheenan wrote:
A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

I'm not condemning the use of cannabis for medical use, I've known a few people that have used it, with remarkable effects.
What I was pointing out in my original comment was the quantity of plants, and cash in the property.
If somebody is propagating for personal use, it's just a guess, but I'd say 135 plants is a little excessive?
I've recently seen a TV programme about the growing of cannabis "legally" in the USA, and it's big business, $1.6Billion a year if I remember correctly.
As a result, each State that has approved it, is raking in Millions of dollars in revenue, crime is down, and obviously there's far less dodgy drugs.
Did you know it's being grown legally in London for use in cancer drugs?
I'm all for legalising and regulating its cultivation, sale and use, I've seen the benefits, the UK should take note of what's happening in California.

You are misinformed and quaint. There has been gathering information over the last 100 years that cannabis is one of the worlds most beneficial and benign plants.
So if people are really, really sick, almost dying... OK they can have a bit of cannabis!
The banning of cannabis was all about securing a burgeoning alcohol industry in India... Moment in 1902 when evidence based drug policy died in favour of vested interest! http://goo.gl/smA1V
If there is a funny side to it; it's that prohibitionists are too out-of-the-loop to know it's already over.
I'm working towards these 'new' commodities being traded on the London Stock Exchange ala Tea and Coffee Beans. A trade association will standardize the yet to be legalized International Cannabis and Coca leaf industry.
So will end an epoch.

Jack Stanley Evans wrote:
1Love, you're right. We have to face the facts though "Freedom to Farm for all." isn't going to happen. What I expect to see is strict regulation and we might as well accept it and get on with it. Then, in time, when the safety of the plant becomes obvious the law will relax further.

You obviously do not understand the human rights act then, It says we have a right to a private life. Now if the UK government would respect that right of ours then there would be no problem! However they don't and there is a problem, they do not respect our rights but you advocate giving them more power by allowing them to come round to my house to inspect my grow as and when they please! Err right now they need a warrant to do that!

Darkforbid wrote:
┄So
lets analyse that... 200
Grammes is just over 7
ounces which is not really a
great amount of plant
material┄

Yep it may sound like that, but with street retail running at £10 a gram (should be Hi-grade, but often not), its a expensive habit to run if you don't grow.. Btw the poster above should know turning it into oil makes it a class A drug

Not any more! Oil hasn't been class A for some time!

mheenan wrote:

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

mheenan wrote:
A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

I'm not condemning the use of cannabis for medical use, I've known a few people that have used it, with remarkable effects.
What I was pointing out in my original comment was the quantity of plants, and cash in the property.
If somebody is propagating for personal use, it's just a guess, but I'd say 135 plants is a little excessive?
I've recently seen a TV programme about the growing of cannabis "legally" in the USA, and it's big business, $1.6Billion a year if I remember correctly.
As a result, each State that has approved it, is raking in Millions of dollars in revenue, crime is down, and obviously there's far less dodgy drugs.
Did you know it's being grown legally in London for use in cancer drugs?
I'm all for legalising and regulating its cultivation, sale and use, I've seen the benefits, the UK should take note of what's happening in California.

You are misinformed and quaint. There has been gathering information over the last 100 years that cannabis is one of the worlds most beneficial and benign plants.
So if people are really, really sick, almost dying... OK they can have a bit of cannabis!
The banning of cannabis was all about securing a burgeoning alcohol industry in India... Moment in 1902 when evidence based drug policy died in favour of vested interest! http://goo.gl/smA1V
If there is a funny side to it; it's that prohibitionists are too out-of-the-loop to know it's already over.
I'm working towards these 'new' commodities being traded on the London Stock Exchange ala Tea and Coffee Beans. A trade association will standardize the yet to be legalized International Cannabis and Coca leaf industry.
So will end an epoch.

Apologies Dilligaf2010. I'm a bad reader. Respect and Best Wishes!!!!!

That CLEAR site has to be a scam, they want you to donate by paypal but you can join under a false name!

Is it some sort of ponzi scheme?

And hasn't the leader of that party got a conviction for fraud?

May justice continue to be lenient until the laws are made more reasonable.

Forgive the digression of a comment regarding comments, but if the person posting as Peter Reynolds is actually the leader of the CLEAR party, his posting no less than five comments promoting his website, and his use of ad hominem argument (hopeless hippies) inclines me to agreement with those who question his leadership abilities.

Back to the main subject matter: the striking disparity in sentencing between this case and that of another medicinal user, Winston Matthews, makes plain the necessity of revisiting the classification of cannabis.

The whole misuse of drugs act needs revisiting Poppy. Other than that, cannabis should be classed as a medicine and placed into the Medicines act. It would be much fairer for all concerned. I'd like to have the right to take a medicine that is natural and free from Big Pharma's influence. Cannabis is a very useful plant. It's a shame, that as citizens of the UK, our government prohibits its possession and production. It's truly sad.

Yes I think he openly admits his criminal past D.Bell, if memory serves me right I think he spent some time on remand for violence against his wife as well I'm sure that was dropped perhaps she was scared anyway he had blogged about all this and answered questions apparently before being put up for elections for the L.C.A leadership of course once elected he sacked everyone in the old L.C.A and then appointed his friends to a new exec committee and renamed the party to CLEAR!

Yes I think he openly admits his criminal past D.Bell, if memory serves me right I think he spent some time on remand for violence against his wife as well I'm sure that was dropped perhaps she was scared anyway he had blogged about all this and answered questions apparently before being put up for elections for the L.C.A leadership of course once elected he sacked everyone in the old L.C.A and then appointed his friends to a new exec committee and renamed the party to CLEAR!

mheenan wrote:

mheenan wrote:

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

mheenan wrote:
A judge with courage and principles is hardly a rat. The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis is ending one courageous judge at a time.
Nothing to fear apart from foaming at the mouth deluded prohibitionists.
Well done Judge! Is a travesty that this nonsense even gets before you.
Thank you on behalf of good people the world over.

I'm not condemning the use of cannabis for medical use, I've known a few people that have used it, with remarkable effects.
What I was pointing out in my original comment was the quantity of plants, and cash in the property.
If somebody is propagating for personal use, it's just a guess, but I'd say 135 plants is a little excessive?
I've recently seen a TV programme about the growing of cannabis "legally" in the USA, and it's big business, $1.6Billion a year if I remember correctly.
As a result, each State that has approved it, is raking in Millions of dollars in revenue, crime is down, and obviously there's far less dodgy drugs.
Did you know it's being grown legally in London for use in cancer drugs?
I'm all for legalising and regulating its cultivation, sale and use, I've seen the benefits, the UK should take note of what's happening in California.

You are misinformed and quaint. There has been gathering information over the last 100 years that cannabis is one of the worlds most beneficial and benign plants.
So if people are really, really sick, almost dying... OK they can have a bit of cannabis!
The banning of cannabis was all about securing a burgeoning alcohol industry in India... Moment in 1902 when evidence based drug policy died in favour of vested interest! http://goo.gl/smA1V
If there is a funny side to it; it's that prohibitionists are too out-of-the-loop to know it's already over.
I'm working towards these 'new' commodities being traded on the London Stock Exchange ala Tea and Coffee Beans. A trade association will standardize the yet to be legalized International Cannabis and Coca leaf industry.
So will end an epoch.

Apologies Dilligaf2010. I'm a bad reader. Respect and Best Wishes!!!!!

I was just going to ask what you'd been smoking LOL.
Apologies accepted :)

welshstoner wrote:
The whole misuse of drugs act needs revisiting Poppy. Other than that, cannabis should be classed as a medicine and placed into the Medicines act. It would be much fairer for all concerned. I'd like to have the right to take a medicine that is natural and free from Big Pharma's influence. Cannabis is a very useful plant. It's a shame, that as citizens of the UK, our government prohibits its possession and production. It's truly sad.

Thank you, welshstoner. That is a valuable clarification. It seems to me that Andrew Walters had more in common with a user and grower of chamomile than with a user or grower of heroin.

┄Not any more! Oil hasn't been
class A for some time!┄

Hey your right, just read the Act, its just grouped with the rest as class B.. Thanks

Is two cannabis reform groups playing 'we know best' doing the argument any good?

People grow poppies. Some put the seeds on Bread and others get opium from the seed pods. Heroin is made from opium. Many people use many types of drugs and the majority do it safely. What I'd like to see is a move away from people talking about drugs and to concentrate more on what the misuse of drugs act set out to achieve. There has to be a difference in our treatment by the law in regards to our drug use. If I am a safe user, I should be left alone. If, however, I become a problem drug user who's threatening my own life and others then I would be happy for the government to intervene. If anyone wants to see change, they should first take the step to establish the difference between usage and the effects that has on society and misuse. I want to experience true self-determination before I die.

The 50-year-old defendant grew cannabis at his home in West End, Witney, before it was raided on April 21 last year.

Police found 135 plants, £2,630 in cash and hundreds of grams of skunk


And are you lot trying to tell me he is not a drug dealer?

Get a life. He should have been banged up and anyone who supports this drug dealer is an idiot. some sad people about today who support drug users and suppliers. And even sadder are the people that use it and think its fine.

┄Get a life. He should have
been banged up and anyone
who supports this drug dealer
is an idiot. some sad people
about today who support drug
users and suppliers. And
even sadder are the people
that use it and think its fine.┄

That's basically calling the entire music/media business in the world idiots.. And cannabis has been used by man for thousands of years, oh sorry i forgot if the government says its bad, it must be they'd never lie..

And i suppose you only mean illegal drugs, not the high profit, more harmful doctor given kind.

Darkforbid wrote:
┄Get a life. He should have been banged up and anyone who supports this drug dealer is an idiot. some sad people about today who support drug users and suppliers. And even sadder are the people that use it and think its fine.┄ That's basically calling the entire music/media business in the world idiots.. And cannabis has been used by man for thousands of years, oh sorry i forgot if the government says its bad, it must be they'd never lie.. And i suppose you only mean illegal drugs, not the high profit, more harmful doctor given kind.

Yes they are idiots and so are people like you who support drugtaking. OK?

┄Yes they are idiots and so are people like you who support drugtaking. OK?┄

Yep i guess your right those doctor's, all the NHS staff.. Not a brain cell between the lot of them..

Got to agree with Darkforbid. I've seen badly-prescribed pharmaceuticals drive a friend to suicide, and the doctor and the pharmaceutical corporations weren't held responsible. On the other hand I've seen patients debilitated by pain get so much pain relief from medicinal cannabis that they were able to increase their activity and mobility tremendously - yet they can be jailed and their property seized. It's easy to see there's something wrong with this picture, unless of course you hold stock in pharmaceutical corporations.

"The bigoted, racist and ignorant war on cannabis "
What "rac" is cannabis, you nutter? And as for DF, didnt´do a lot of good , that stuff, did it?

Darkforbid wrote:
┄Not any more! Oil hasn't been
class A for some time!┄

Hey your right, just read the Act, its just grouped with the rest as class B.. Thanks

Is two cannabis reform groups playing 'we know best' doing the argument any good?

I like the one where Reynolds starts "I'm no racist but....."

or the one where he claims he got cannabis decriminalised in the UK

lol

┄The bigoted, racist and
ignorant war on cannabis "
What "rac" is cannabis, you
nutter?┄

Lord P, that's just point all countries where all types of hemp was grown.. Were put under pressure to control its growth/use.

┄And as for DF, didnt ´do a lot of good , that stuff, did it?┄

Depends what you mean by good LP, during the times i was growing plenty of money to spend, and life as a happy stonehead.. Yep it was all bad.

I feel i must add this comment,having seen for myself what the said drug can do for people that suffer from MS. My biker mate who over the years had become bed ridden and sufferd very bad shakes and his speech became hard to understand as the attack of the MS made him sound very drunk .I have seen him have five or six tokes on a joint and within five minutes regain perfect speech and the shakes totaly gone on several occassions .It worked much better than the crap the docotor or hospital gave him!!! RIP DUNNER LATERS BROTHER

Admirable custody sergeant for judicious use of common sense and discernment, here, albeit the CPS decided to prosecute.

Therapeutic cannabis for medical use should cost less and be used more than many other scrip drugs. It's stood the test of time and is probably better for many people.

Of course, new hybrids contain higher strength d9 THC, and carry risks if abused.

Is no one going to mention that hemp seed is also near perfect human food.

In fact this plant has so many uses, any law that controls its growth is a crime against nature.

Andrew Walters would make what could be described as a highly "cultured" friend. As a token of civilized cordiality, let's tender a richly fuming, fragrant calumet...

simplicissimus wrote:
Admirable custody sergeant for judicious use of common sense and discernment, here, albeit the CPS decided to prosecute.

Therapeutic cannabis for medical use should cost less and be used more than many other scrip drugs. It's stood the test of time and is probably better for many people.

Of course, new hybrids contain higher strength d9 THC, and carry risks if abused.

There are also new hybrids that have a higher percent of CBD: the compound which reduces pain and inflammation and actually counterbalance the psychoactive properties of THC.

The risk of abuse is far less than that of pharmaceuticals prescribed for the same medical conditions for most patients, and if a patient were to try medical cannabis and find that it wasn't suitable in their case, they at least would not have the problem of physical dependence and a need for gradual withdrawal from the medication, a risk inherent in the use of many pharmaceutical chemicals.

(Incidentally, the natural balancing of the various compounds and their interaction makes the whole plant safer and more effective than extracts, though the corporations which profit from marketing extracts would prefer that this fact were not known.)

Darkforbid wrote:
Is no one going to mention that hemp seed is also near perfect human food.

In fact this plant has so many uses, any law that controls its growth is a crime against nature.

Might I just add, since nobody has alluded to this fascinating and little known trivium, that hemp seed is also near perfect human food! Give some to your bird for St. Valentine's...

D Bell wrote:
That CLEAR site has to be a scam, they want you to donate by paypal but you can join under a false name!

Is it some sort of ponzi scheme?

And hasn't the leader of that party got a conviction for fraud?

You seem to be doing your utmost to deliberately push back the legalisation of cannabis in the UK. You are therefore either a spineless politician / tabloid editor / alcohol big wig or a complete goon.

For a few years now, I've been going on a lot of different local news pages, campaigning in my own little way for changes in the cannabis laws and raising awareness of the complete frigging madness of it all.

I see Peter Reynolds all the time, and have done for some time, and he's far busier than me. I can hand on heart say I've never seen Peter act with anything than utter decorum in every post of his I've ever read. I certainly can't say the same thing. Peter Reynolds, and the way he holds himself in public, is an excellent public face of cannabis decriminalisation.

What you are doing therefore is extremely detrimental to the decriminalisation of cannabis in the UK.,

What exactly have you achieved like Peter has? All I've seen you do is whinge and deliberately try to derail an attempt for cannabis decriminalisation.

Not happy? Fine, campaign for yourself in your own way for whatever details you believe in. Don't moan about other people's campaigns though as you put back the whole process, and anyway it just comes across as incredibly jealous and bitter.

I'm embarrassed if you purport to represent the cannabis community. You certainly don't from my end

Carry on of course, it's a free country, but be aware that you aren't being a friend to pretty much all cannabis smokers in this country, you are their enemy. Your actions are totally detrimental to their potential future happiness.

If I was you I'd take a step back, have a major smoke, and think if I was acting like a complete goon.

http://www.druglibra
ry.org/schaffer/libr
ary/effects.htm

http://www.cannabis-
med.org/science/Jama
ica.htm

Cannabis is an important entheogen:
http://www.superlumi
nal.com/cookbook/ess
ay_bhang.html

http://www.druglibra
ry.org/schaffer/hemp
/potbible.htm

http://www.jackherer
.com/thebook/chapter
-six/

There are no known allergies to hemp foods. Hardly so bad for our health and wellbeing, then, and with a wealth of benefits.

Peter Reynolds seems more of a liability than an asset to the cause.

http://www.campaign.
mondialvillage.com/r
elease/index.html

Even if you focus only on cannabis, he puts out misleading information and uses every news item as an opportunity to grandstand.

Look beyond cannabis and you'll see issues of bigotry that would embarrass anyone else into leaving the political arena.

It really doesn't do the cause of cannabis any good to be lead by a campaigner of his sort.

PoppyCox wrote:
Peter Reynolds seems more of a liability than an asset to the cause.

http://www.campaign.

mondialvillage.com/r

elease/index.html

Even if you focus only on cannabis, he puts out misleading information and uses every news item as an opportunity to grandstand.

Look beyond cannabis and you'll see issues of bigotry that would embarrass anyone else into leaving the political arena.

It really doesn't do the cause of cannabis any good to be lead by a campaigner of his sort.

Don't you see what you are doing?

You are setting back the cannabis campaign for legalisation in general. If you are from the cannabis community then you are the current liability, not Peter Reynolds.

Not happy with Peter Reynolds campaign? Fine, get on with your own one. Don't moan about other people's campaign. Your public bleating about Peter Reynolds is having a detrimental effect on an ongoing cannabis campaign.

Stop it if you truly want to progress cannabis change - continue if you don't, but you aren't making any friends.

That's the nicest way I can put it.

I suppse Whitney Houston started on the weed for for a craic but soon was on the crack. That did not get her very far did it. 48 years old. Such a waste drugs are poison.

You know when you go onto a website and there is a comments section and its full of people bickering back and forth with their opinions that they wont change, whatever is said, and you think to yourself 'I'm not like that'..........this is why things never change for the better....thanks....
having said that i agree with jack herer, well put!

I think the real Jack Herer would not have been happy with his name being used to bolster the reputation of a petty politician with a raunchy reputation.

I know that Reynolds has been trying to clean up his act, deleting damning blog posts and other litter around the web, but his reputation stands as he continues to publish disinformation.

It's just silly to claim everyone should fall in line and support someone who is so clearly unfit to lead. I do indeed get on with campaigns of my own, but what I and other people do for the benefit of the cause is harmed by his association with it.

I'm not a user of cannabis, never have been, and don't plan to be, at least not as a recreational user, anyway.
I have however seen, at first hand, the benefits it brings when used medicinally, for MS & back pain.
I'm all for it being used for medicinal purposes, it's proven, but there has to be legislation in place.
The way forward is to copy what they've done in California, there are licenced growers, licenced sellers, even licenced & franchised outlets for all the equipment required for growing (although that's not illegal), and as I've said in a previous comment, it's great for the treasury.
In my opinion, the only way that cannabis is going to be legalised in this Country, is if there's strict control over the varieties grown, and the government are reaping revenue from it.
Over time, once there's widespread documentation (more than what's currently available) that the varieties being used medicinally have no adverse side effects, the laws may well be relaxed to allow for recreational use of the same varieties.
There are documented cases of mental health issues surrounding the use of cannabis, so the only way the powers that be are going to listen, is to get documented medical proof, relating to the varieties that have no adverse side effects.

told Walters: “You’re not by any standard definition a criminal, but the fact is ***you are somebody who had decided because of your own difficulties you were entitled to break the law on a significant scale by cultivating cannabis to provide medication for your own condition.***”

In complete contradiction to these case ruling!


Law Hospital NHS Trust -v- Lord Advocate and Another 1996 SC 301

“Where the patient is of full age and capable of understanding and consenting to the procedures which on medical advice are for his or her benefit, or decides to refuse medical treatment, the right of self determination provides the solution to all problems, at least so far as the court is concerned.

It is not in doubt that a medical practitioner who acts or omits to act with the consent of his patient requires no sanction or other authority from the court. The patient's consent renders lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful. It is not for the court to substitute its own views as to what may or may not be in the patient's best interests for the decision of the patient, if of full age and capacity."





In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) 2 AC 1. {per Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bland (1993)}
“It is a civil wrong, and may be a crime, to impose medical treatment on a conscious adult of sound mind without his or her consent.”


For a conscious adult of sound mind, the right of self-determination exists: “ … whether the reasons for making that choice are rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent.” (per Lord Donaldson in Re T (1992)).

House of Lords, Lord Steyn, Chester v Afshar 1 AC 134 @ para16. “In modern law medical paternalism no longer rules … ”


Per Lord Templeman in Sidaway v Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital 1 AC 171
"The patient is entitled to reject advice for reasons which are rational, or irrational, or for no reason."


Per Lord Goff in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland AC 789.
"It is established that the principle of self-determination requires that respect must be given to the wishes of the patient, so that, if an adult patient of sound mind refuses, however unreasonably, to consent to treatment or care by which his life would or might be prolonged, the doctors responsible for his care must give effect to his wishes, even....though they do not consider it to be in his best interests to do so...."



How is it we have a 'right of self-determination' in law, yet we're not allowedto 'determine' the effectiveness of Cannabis?

Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
That CLEAR site has to be a scam, they want you to donate by paypal but you can join under a false name!

Is it some sort of ponzi scheme?

And hasn't the leader of that party got a conviction for fraud?

You seem to be doing your utmost to deliberately push back the legalisation of cannabis in the UK. You are therefore either a spineless politician / tabloid editor / alcohol big wig or a complete goon.

For a few years now, I've been going on a lot of different local news pages, campaigning in my own little way for changes in the cannabis laws and raising awareness of the complete frigging madness of it all.

I see Peter Reynolds all the time, and have done for some time, and he's far busier than me. I can hand on heart say I've never seen Peter act with anything than utter decorum in every post of his I've ever read. I certainly can't say the same thing. Peter Reynolds, and the way he holds himself in public, is an excellent public face of cannabis decriminalisation.

What you are doing therefore is extremely detrimental to the decriminalisation of cannabis in the UK.,

What exactly have you achieved like Peter has? All I've seen you do is whinge and deliberately try to derail an attempt for cannabis decriminalisation.

Not happy? Fine, campaign for yourself in your own way for whatever details you believe in. Don't moan about other people's campaigns though as you put back the whole process, and anyway it just comes across as incredibly jealous and bitter.

I'm embarrassed if you purport to represent the cannabis community. You certainly don't from my end

Carry on of course, it's a free country, but be aware that you aren't being a friend to pretty much all cannabis smokers in this country, you are their enemy. Your actions are totally detrimental to their potential future happiness.

If I was you I'd take a step back, have a major smoke, and think if I was acting like a complete goon.

Please don't talk of people with opinions different to your own as the enemy. It's uncalled for in my humble opinion. The fact is that CLEAR is willing to take on membership from any person under any name. Those acting on behalf of the "political party" may in fact be breaking the law. Let's be realistic here, if you had £100 you could join x amount of times. Can that ever be right? I don't know, maybe this newspaper could look into it. "Do you have a legal team please?"

I'd like to say that if you support decriminalisation your being deeply mislead as to what that would lead to in regards to your treatment by the law and society as a whole. Having your actions decriminalised in no way means that you still couldn't get arrested. Just that your treatment would be different in regards to the law(You may be asked to attend counselling or attend rehab meetings for example.). CLEAR would like all home grows licensed. If you can't afford a licence, you could still busted. I'm not up for that. Are you?

shipscat wrote:
I suppse Whitney Houston started on the weed for for a craic but soon was on the crack. That did not get her very far did it. 48 years old. Such a waste drugs are poison.

Yeah you are not wrong - hard drugs are poison.

Whitney Houston would never have died from a cannabis overdose -no-one ever has. If cannabis had been her only drug of choice, she'd be happily alive today.

They think it might have been alcohol that killed her - she will have definitely started on that too - not cannabis.

Not looking good is it alcohol? Worst gateway drug there is, and it appears to be killing people in droves - including celebrities.

The sooner we legalise cannabis and give that poison killer alcohol some much needed extremely healthy (literally) competition the better eh!

PoppyCox wrote:
I think the real Jack Herer would not have been happy with his name being used to bolster the reputation of a petty politician with a raunchy reputation.

I know that Reynolds has been trying to clean up his act, deleting damning blog posts and other litter around the web, but his reputation stands as he continues to publish disinformation.

It's just silly to claim everyone should fall in line and support someone who is so clearly unfit to lead. I do indeed get on with campaigns of my own, but what I and other people do for the benefit of the cause is harmed by his association with it.

What exactly is your own campaign then? Is Peter Reynolds going round bad mouthing you with silly childish personal insults that is detracting / derailing it like you are doing to his? Am I going round derailing your campaign?

No one is harming your own campaign. What even is your own campaign? Have you even got one? Have you done much - more than Peter?

I'm guessing you don't actually have a campaign of your own, you are simply harming someone else's. What a total disgrace then. You are no different to the tabloids or the dodgy politicians. You are an obstacle to legalisation and therefore you are an enemy to most cannabis users. You are just the same as all the other ignorant goons out there actively campaigning against cannabis law changes.

You are worse if anything, because at least they are doing it for gain in some way, or some misguided moral position. You seem to be doing it for nothing more than petty childish jealousy.

You are acting like a total baby, and, I for one, am completely embarrassed that you purport to represent the cannabis community in any way. You don't. You are very clearly the enemy of the cannabis community with your actions.

I am not claiming you fall into line with Peter Reynolds, I'm saying leave him alone and stop trying to derail his campaign.

I look forward to reading about your own campaign, but if you continue to go round derailing someone else's campaign, it makes you an enemy of mostly all cannabis users - everyone outside your own tiny clique in fact.

Don't forget that, and don't expect any pulled punches if you continue to act as an enemy of cannabis legalisation.

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
That CLEAR site has to be a scam, they want you to donate by paypal but you can join under a false name!

Is it some sort of ponzi scheme?

And hasn't the leader of that party got a conviction for fraud?

You seem to be doing your utmost to deliberately push back the legalisation of cannabis in the UK. You are therefore either a spineless politician / tabloid editor / alcohol big wig or a complete goon.

For a few years now, I've been going on a lot of different local news pages, campaigning in my own little way for changes in the cannabis laws and raising awareness of the complete frigging madness of it all.

I see Peter Reynolds all the time, and have done for some time, and he's far busier than me. I can hand on heart say I've never seen Peter act with anything than utter decorum in every post of his I've ever read. I certainly can't say the same thing. Peter Reynolds, and the way he holds himself in public, is an excellent public face of cannabis decriminalisation.

What you are doing therefore is extremely detrimental to the decriminalisation of cannabis in the UK.,

What exactly have you achieved like Peter has? All I've seen you do is whinge and deliberately try to derail an attempt for cannabis decriminalisation.

Not happy? Fine, campaign for yourself in your own way for whatever details you believe in. Don't moan about other people's campaigns though as you put back the whole process, and anyway it just comes across as incredibly jealous and bitter.

I'm embarrassed if you purport to represent the cannabis community. You certainly don't from my end

Carry on of course, it's a free country, but be aware that you aren't being a friend to pretty much all cannabis smokers in this country, you are their enemy. Your actions are totally detrimental to their potential future happiness.

If I was you I'd take a step back, have a major smoke, and think if I was acting like a complete goon.

Please don't talk of people with opinions different to your own as the enemy. It's uncalled for in my humble opinion. The fact is that CLEAR is willing to take on membership from any person under any name. Those acting on behalf of the "political party" may in fact be breaking the law. Let's be realistic here, if you had £100 you could join x amount of times. Can that ever be right? I don't know, maybe this newspaper could look into it. "Do you have a legal team please?"

Look - you are the enemy to most cannabis users if you are deliberately trying to stop an ongoing legalisation campaign. Exactly the same as if you were anyone else trying to stop it, be they politicians or whoever.

You are placing yourself in this position by doing what you are doing - someone pointing out the truth to you isn't doing this, you are making yourself an enemy by your actions.

If you don't want to be an enemy of cannabis legalisation, stop acting like one, that's the only way for you not to be. Whether or not someone tells you the truth won't make any difference. If your actions are simply a childish slur fest against another campaigner then you will always be an enemy.

Don't do negative things, do positive things - start your own campaign, whatever. Negative things make you the enemy, not someone pointing it out.

D Bell wrote:
That CLEAR site has to be a scam, they want you to donate by paypal but you can join under a false name!

Is it some sort of ponzi scheme?

And hasn't the leader of that party got a conviction for fraud?

All political parties can be joined in this way - try it for yourself today with the Cons / Labour / Lib Dems if you don't believe me. Donation by Paypal - false name if you so wish.

You therefore need to contact your local MP about this problem. Bleating about a single small party who this problem affects is childish and petty.

welshstoner wrote:
I'd like to say that if you support decriminalisation your being deeply mislead as to what that would lead to in regards to your treatment by the law and society as a whole. Having your actions decriminalised in no way means that you still couldn't get arrested. Just that your treatment would be different in regards to the law(You may be asked to attend counselling or attend rehab meetings for example.). CLEAR would like all home grows licensed. If you can't afford a licence, you could still busted. I'm not up for that. Are you?

No worries - campaign for what you believe in yourself. Don't try to derail someone else's campaign though.

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

xjohnx wrote:
Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

What's your point John? Do you have one?

xjohnx wrote:
Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

Mostly Northern Lights, but sometimes strains with a bit more sativa, ruderalis. You?

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Look, I don't know what weird reality you are in, but cannabis use is definitely currently illegal. Cases like this are proof of that.

So we could argue all day about the philosophical semantics of the current law, but it won't change people being arrested and brought before the courts and the total wastage of public money associated with that. Therefore we need to change the law not argue about the current one.

I probably would support you if you had a campaign, but you don't appear to have one. Peter Reynolds does have a campaign and seems to be working extremely hard at it. I'm therefore going to support his attempt, and defend it from those who just seem to want to derail it for selfish ends.

Simple.

Jack Herer wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Look, I don't know what weird reality you are in, but cannabis use is definitely currently illegal. Cases like this are proof of that.

So we could argue all day about the philosophical semantics of the current law, but it won't change people being arrested and brought before the courts and the total wastage of public money associated with that. Therefore we need to change the law not argue about the current one.

I probably would support you if you had a campaign, but you don't appear to have one. Peter Reynolds does have a campaign and seems to be working extremely hard at it. I'm therefore going to support his attempt, and defend it from those who just seem to want to derail it for selfish ends.

Simple.

Agree. There is overwhelming evidence that cannabis is, at worst, as psychosis inducing as coffee. There is also overwhelming evidence that prohibitionists are ill-informed at best. At worst they are a vested interest directly responsible for deaths of 10's of thousands, the incarceration of a generation of black men etc etc. Thankfully, the tide has turned. I'm enjoying watching bigoted old fools thrash about with the war-on-drugs death throws. Please tell me I'm wrong that I may make you look quaint.

---Mostly Northern Lights, but
sometimes strains with a bit more
sativa, ruderalis. You?---

blueberry, flo, love the classics...

Darkforbid wrote:
---Mostly Northern Lights, but
sometimes strains with a bit more
sativa, ruderalis. You?---

blueberry, flo, love the classics...

What a 'brand' cannabis is. All of these strains and many, many more will soon be available retail on the high street! Bring on the London Cannabis Olympics!!! Respect and Best Wishes!

What #hashtag would this topic come under on Twitter, hmmm?

welshstoner wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

What's your point John? Do you have one?

My point is, as an unbiased, reasonably intelligent, sober citizen, I don't understand the inferences in the posts being placed here. A lot of it sounds slightly warped or wierd and rambling.

Jack Herer wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Look, I don't know what weird reality you are in, but cannabis use is definitely currently illegal. Cases like this are proof of that.

So we could argue all day about the philosophical semantics of the current law, but it won't change people being arrested and brought before the courts and the total wastage of public money associated with that. Therefore we need to change the law not argue about the current one.

I probably would support you if you had a campaign, but you don't appear to have one. Peter Reynolds does have a campaign and seems to be working extremely hard at it. I'm therefore going to support his attempt, and defend it from those who just seem to want to derail it for selfish ends.

Simple.

First an foremost, cannabis use is not unlawful. Only when a person possesses or grows it does anything become unlawful. What you describe as "philosophical semantics" is in fact true. The misuse of drugs act was never intended to be used by governments in its current way and only opium use is actually against the law in this country. By arguing that a person should have no drugs on their person, in effect, bans all drug use. What we need to be doing is moving the argument from being about a plant and back to one about the person. Peters campaign is just that. Peters campaign. He's had his privates out on all the dating sites and his Blog was anti-Semite, anti-homosexual and anti-Pakistan. Support him all you want but don't make the rest of us out as the bad guys, and please stop calling us the enemy. We're just being truthful with the evidence that's been presented to us. You sir are a fool.

xjohnx wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

What's your point John? Do you have one?

My point is, as an unbiased, reasonably intelligent, sober citizen, I don't understand the inferences in the posts being placed here. A lot of it sounds slightly warped or wierd and rambling.

The thing is xjohnx, we have been lied to by the government and vested interests that cannabis is bad. In 1895 the commons Ganja report http://goo.gl/r7v0t recommended regulation of cannabis, not prohibition. But in 1902 Moment in 1902 http://goo.gl/smA1V evidence based drug policy died in favour of vested interest! "Ban Cannabis and Sell my Alcohol instead". Unfortunately, the UK had quite a few other concerns around that time and the vested interests got their way.
Am I wrong? If not, then join Tony Bennet http://goo.gl/hnfFk and call for cannabis legalisation!
But please... don't keep propagating the drug hysteria myths and direct lies.

I forgot to say something here in all the excitement, and I hope I'm not too late for them to read this (if they ever would at all!).

A massive well done to the judge here, and also it seems the custody sergeant.

They are trying their best to just make sense of something they no doubt see as senseless themselves. But by doing so, in the position they are, they are the bravest of all, because it sets them up for ridicule from those with their own selfish reasons not to change the madness - indeed those self interested parasites who are in a position to publicly ridicule them.

It's easy to try and change things behind the anonymity of a keyboard, it's hard when you have to publicly face the music.

So a massive, genuinely heart felt thanks to you - and all those in positions like you who are doing things like this - for trying your best to just make the world an easier, better and overall more sensible place.

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Look, I don't know what weird reality you are in, but cannabis use is definitely currently illegal. Cases like this are proof of that.

So we could argue all day about the philosophical semantics of the current law, but it won't change people being arrested and brought before the courts and the total wastage of public money associated with that. Therefore we need to change the law not argue about the current one.

I probably would support you if you had a campaign, but you don't appear to have one. Peter Reynolds does have a campaign and seems to be working extremely hard at it. I'm therefore going to support his attempt, and defend it from those who just seem to want to derail it for selfish ends.

Simple.

First an foremost, cannabis use is not unlawful. Only when a person possesses or grows it does anything become unlawful. What you describe as "philosophical semantics" is in fact true. The misuse of drugs act was never intended to be used by governments in its current way and only opium use is actually against the law in this country. By arguing that a person should have no drugs on their person, in effect, bans all drug use. What we need to be doing is moving the argument from being about a plant and back to one about the person. Peters campaign is just that. Peters campaign. He's had his privates out on all the dating sites and his Blog was anti-Semite, anti-homosexual and anti-Pakistan. Support him all you want but don't make the rest of us out as the bad guys, and please stop calling us the enemy. We're just being truthful with the evidence that's been presented to us. You sir are a fool.

I genuinely don't understand your argument, beyond it being the type of inane nonsense you hear from people that you regrettably get stuck with sometimes at a party - or worst still chilling out at someone's house of a Sunday morning (I'm guessing you are exactly that type of person). If I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure what colour the sky even is in your world.

The fact remains that you retain enough sense to use a keyboard to keep publicly attacking someone who is doing very well in their campaign to change the crazy cannabis laws we currently have. You are therefore having a very detrimental effect on the push to have those laws changed.

Pretty much all cannabis users in this country want those cannabis laws changed, apart from you and your tiny jealous clique it would seem.

Go away welshstoner if you have nothing but bitter and hate filled insults that no-one is interested in. You are not a friend to the cannabis community at large acting in this way, you are a total liability and a detriment to their well being. Not to mention society in general of course, which desperately needs change.

In your own little way welshstoner, you are as bad as the editor of the Daily Mail with your constant attempt to stop cannabis being legalised. Way to go!

I see Herr Reynolds is not content with dishing out wrong information to the masses about cannabis being supposedly decriminilised but has now decided to attack Release lol. Who does he think he is? Release gets millions of pounds per year for it's campaign and employs some high flying legal experts who simply didn't agree with Herr Reynolds statement on cannabis being decriminilised, just because Reynolds may have printed out a law degree on his old daisy-wheel printer doesn't make him any less wrong!

xjohnx wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
Hmm,
What are you lot smoking nowdays? It has obviously scrambled your brains.

What's your point John? Do you have one?

My point is, as an unbiased, reasonably intelligent, sober citizen, I don't understand the inferences in the posts being placed here. A lot of it sounds slightly warped or wierd and rambling.

Hi xjohnx, do you find it strange that the last government sacked their last expert drugs advisor simply for telling the truth about cannabis? When did it become OK to suppress the truth from science? We aren't in the dark ages; the enlightenment was a long time ago and has subsequently changed our entire world to be one driven by sense, reason and logic, not hearsay. That is of course apart from our cannabis laws, where the truth is literally suppressed to make way for a self interested tabloid message.

A bit weird eh - I hope they don't attempt to turn back the clock by condemning modern medicine as witchcraft, or something equally as unscientific.

Are you aware that cannabis has huge proven medical benefits? Are you aware that, statistically, from the only major social studies on the subject, cannabis users live on average one and half to two years longer than none users?

Those are clearly uncomfortable facts to those attempting to constantly discredit cannabis. The tabloids - the whole press in general in fact - never seem to report positive things about cannabis though, even though they could fill their entire papers daily with positive life changing stories from cannabis use.

If you are currently swimming in a sea of ignorance by gaining all your current information from the self interested tabloids, then I would strongly suggest that you take just a little look around. On the web you will lots and lots of real scientists who talk openly about the benefits of cannabis - backed up by real science.

Dr Lester Grinspoon, an extremely eminent former Professor of Psychiatry at Havard (amongst many other things) is an excellent person to read about regarding medical cannabis use and the myths associated. My namesake, Jack Herer, is by far the best person to look up regarding the strange and crazy world of cannabis prohibition - his fully referenced book is available free online.

Brian_C wrote:
I see Herr Reynolds is not content with dishing out wrong information to the masses about cannabis being supposedly decriminilised but has now decided to attack Release lol. Who does he think he is? Release gets millions of pounds per year for it's campaign and employs some high flying legal experts who simply didn't agree with Herr Reynolds statement on cannabis being decriminilised, just because Reynolds may have printed out a law degree on his old daisy-wheel printer doesn't make him any less wrong!

Just stick to your own campaign eh, because you are currently as detrimental to the legalisation of cannabis as a dodgy politician or a tabloid editor.

The incredible thing is you purport to represent the cannabis community somehow. You very much don't though - you are a complete embarrassment to it. Not good I'm afraid.

Like I say, stick to your own campaign if you have one, but don't attack others because you are attacking the cannabis community at large.

All the comment warriors do now is stick up for their leader and his tarnished, nay ruined reputation

lol

Haven't you lot got better things to do?

Jack Herer wrote:

Brian_C wrote:
I see Herr Reynolds is not content with dishing out wrong information to the masses about cannabis being supposedly decriminilised but has now decided to attack Release lol. Who does he think he is? Release gets millions of pounds per year for it's campaign and employs some high flying legal experts who simply didn't agree with Herr Reynolds statement on cannabis being decriminilised, just because Reynolds may have printed out a law degree on his old daisy-wheel printer doesn't make him any less wrong!

Just stick to your own campaign eh, because you are currently as detrimental to the legalisation of cannabis as a dodgy politician or a tabloid editor.

The incredible thing is you purport to represent the cannabis community somehow. You very much don't though - you are a complete embarrassment to it. Not good I'm afraid.

Like I say, stick to your own campaign if you have one, but don't attack others because you are attacking the cannabis community at large.

I don't purport to represent anyone other than myself lol. It certainly isn't me thats been indoctrinated into some sort of cannabis cult who's leader is right about everything lol.

Next he will be saying it's ok to grow because it's been decriminilised and the police won't be interested in upholding the law, oh hold on, been there!

Then there was his report to the 1978 select committee oh err they never had select committees in 1978 so we will change it to 1983 nobody will notice eh (but they did) err errm it was the one in 1985 but funnily enough that one was all about hard drugs which cannabis isn't hmm.. What's your leaders reply to this? Wasn't it there all trolls, liars, prohibitionists and genetically confused individuals?

Keep it up why not worship the sun at least it's consistent!

Jack Herer wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

welshstoner wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

D Bell wrote:
Comment Warriors, if you want to make a difference then stop your idiotic leader trying to use these stories as a recruiting tool

Reynolds is a liability and instead of fighting prohibition you have to fight to defend the rubbish reputation of your leader

He's a liability and you lot are going to be constantly defending the indefensible

So tell him to stop and we can all get on with fighting prohibition

Because CLEAR comment warriors are only helping prohibition by their actions, so stop it!

Peter Reynolds is not my leader thanks. He is someone trying hard to decriminalise cannabis use in the UK. He is therefore my friend.

You don't appear to be doing anything yourself other than trying to derail my friend's campaign. You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being.

I will happily read your own campaign, and even support and defend it. You don't appear to have a campaign though, you only knock someone else's.

Go away if you can do nothing else but attack someone else's campaign. If you don't then you are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users in the UK.

Stop what you are doing if you don't want to be the enemy. Nobody is making you the enemy apart from yourself with your own actions. You are making yourself an obstacle to cannabis legalisation. You are making yourself an enemy to most cannabis users.

Nobody is doing this apart from yourself.

First you say Peter's trying to decriminalise cannabis. I say he can't. You can only make lawful the possession and production of cannabis if the misuse of drugs act is used in its proper way. Then you say, "You are very clearly an enemy of cannabis legalisation therefore and an obstacle to my own future enjoyment and well being." First it was cannabis decriminalisation and now cannabis legalisation. Which ever you choose cannabis can not be legalised. It is a plant. It is inanimate. It can not be legal or illegal. It is our actions that are under attack by political ideology stemming back over 100 years. It is our actions that are unlawful. By arguing for cannabis you argue for a plant. What a complete and utter waste of time that is. Just think, you're arguing for a plant. You could argue for eggs or guns and your argument would be same. You're arguing for objects. It is you/me/we that are being subject to punishment. It is us that you should be supporting. To support a plant?! That's just daft.

Look, I don't know what weird reality you are in, but cannabis use is definitely currently illegal. Cases like this are proof of that.

So we could argue all day about the philosophical semantics of the current law, but it won't change people being arrested and brought before the courts and the total wastage of public money associated with that. Therefore we need to change the law not argue about the current one.

I probably would support you if you had a campaign, but you don't appear to have one. Peter Reynolds does have a campaign and seems to be working extremely hard at it. I'm therefore going to support his attempt, and defend it from those who just seem to want to derail it for selfish ends.

Simple.

First an foremost, cannabis use is not unlawful. Only when a person possesses or grows it does anything become unlawful. What you describe as "philosophical semantics" is in fact true. The misuse of drugs act was never intended to be used by governments in its current way and only opium use is actually against the law in this country. By arguing that a person should have no drugs on their person, in effect, bans all drug use. What we need to be doing is moving the argument from being about a plant and back to one about the person. Peters campaign is just that. Peters campaign. He's had his privates out on all the dating sites and his Blog was anti-Semite, anti-homosexual and anti-Pakistan. Support him all you want but don't make the rest of us out as the bad guys, and please stop calling us the enemy. We're just being truthful with the evidence that's been presented to us. You sir are a fool.

I genuinely don't understand your argument, beyond it being the type of inane nonsense you hear from people that you regrettably get stuck with sometimes at a party - or worst still chilling out at someone's house of a Sunday morning (I'm guessing you are exactly that type of person). If I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure what colour the sky even is in your world.

The fact remains that you retain enough sense to use a keyboard to keep publicly attacking someone who is doing very well in their campaign to change the crazy cannabis laws we currently have. You are therefore having a very detrimental effect on the push to have those laws changed.

Pretty much all cannabis users in this country want those cannabis laws changed, apart from you and your tiny jealous clique it would seem.

Go away welshstoner if you have nothing but bitter and hate filled insults that no-one is interested in. You are not a friend to the cannabis community at large acting in this way, you are a total liability and a detriment to their well being. Not to mention society in general of course, which desperately needs change.

In your own little way welshstoner, you are as bad as the editor of the Daily Mail with your constant attempt to stop cannabis being legalised. Way to go!

Not only foolish but stupid to boot. I want to see the misuse of drugs act implemented correctly. I want to see equality for all drug users and not only those who choose cannabis. I want a free and open market that is free from government interference. I want to be able to grow at home licence and tax free. I want something akin to what you want, but better. I also believe you're Peter Reynolds. It's the Daily Mail gag that's the give away. Also, you're debating skills are crass. Try engaging in what I say. Try opening your mind to others views instead of attacking every other viewpoint that differs from your own. Now about that "Tackle". Did you get a stand in?

D Bell wrote:
All the comment warriors do now is stick up for their leader and his tarnished, nay ruined reputation

lol

Haven't you lot got better things to do?

Lol - what are you talking about? Comment warriors?

I'm just doing what I've always done on pages like this, before I had any idea who Peter was. I actually came across Peter because he was doing the same thing as me. I would probably have come across him sooner but I'm guessing I didn't have a wide a scope as him.

That's aside from the fact you are completely wrong either way of course, because, at the risk of sounding pedantic, as a "comment warrior", I posted at 4:53 to xjohnx stating the benefits of cannabis and I clearly didn't mention any defence of Peter there.

You also appear to have switched sides if you used to represent the cannabis community.

Oh and I thanked the admirable people doing their bit within the authorities as well.

What positive posts have you done in the same period D Bell? Are they all hate filled nonsense perchance?

Jack Herer wrote:
Oh and I thanked the admirable people doing their bit within the authorities as well.

What positive posts have you done in the same period D Bell? Are they all hate filled nonsense perchance?

Fair play for you Jack, you're a one. Now about Peter's tackle...

I cannot believe that people are still willing to buy into the Clear myth, it is a toxic brand linked with a racist leader who would probably do better running for the British Freedom Party as his vile views and opinions would fit right in,Instead he chooses to blacken the cannabis cause by refusing to step down. The fact that 2 of Clear's best activist/exec either resigned or was booted says it all about the divisions this "man" has brought about,from his idiotic license policy ,to ban,delete /block tactics.The censorship happening on the Clear pages daily is ridiculous and shows the lengths they will stoop to.

Brian_C wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

Brian_C wrote:
I see Herr Reynolds is not content with dishing out wrong information to the masses about cannabis being supposedly decriminilised but has now decided to attack Release lol. Who does he think he is? Release gets millions of pounds per year for it's campaign and employs some high flying legal experts who simply didn't agree with Herr Reynolds statement on cannabis being decriminilised, just because Reynolds may have printed out a law degree on his old daisy-wheel printer doesn't make him any less wrong!

Just stick to your own campaign eh, because you are currently as detrimental to the legalisation of cannabis as a dodgy politician or a tabloid editor.

The incredible thing is you purport to represent the cannabis community somehow. You very much don't though - you are a complete embarrassment to it. Not good I'm afraid.

Like I say, stick to your own campaign if you have one, but don't attack others because you are attacking the cannabis community at large.

I don't purport to represent anyone other than myself lol. It certainly isn't me thats been indoctrinated into some sort of cannabis cult who's leader is right about everything lol.

Next he will be saying it's ok to grow because it's been decriminilised and the police won't be interested in upholding the law, oh hold on, been there!

Then there was his report to the 1978 select committee oh err they never had select committees in 1978 so we will change it to 1983 nobody will notice eh (but they did) err errm it was the one in 1985 but funnily enough that one was all about hard drugs which cannabis isn't hmm.. What's your leaders reply to this? Wasn't it there all trolls, liars, prohibitionists and genetically confused individuals?

Keep it up why not worship the sun at least it's consistent!

What the dickens are you on about? Cannabis cult? Have you completely lost the plot and your head is spinning free whilst your fingers still type this drivel?

Sinister Dexter wrote:
I cannot believe that people are still willing to buy into the Clear myth, it is a toxic brand linked with a racist leader who would probably do better running for the British Freedom Party as his vile views and opinions would fit right in,Instead he chooses to blacken the cannabis cause by refusing to step down. The fact that 2 of Clear's best activist/exec either resigned or was booted says it all about the divisions this "man" has brought about,from his idiotic license policy ,to ban,delete /block tactics.The censorship happening on the Clear pages daily is ridiculous and shows the lengths they will stoop to.

Lol - who does this - goes on sites to post hate filled nonsense?

By the very definition of things you can't be a nice person.

Who's stuck with you then? Are you still with mum but she's wishes you'd just settle down and find someone and move out? I'm guessing you both know deep down that's never going to happen.

Ahhh bless, chin up. Hey, keep up with this and it might make you feel better somehow if you're that type of person gaining pleasure spreading hate.

Someone give that police sarge a heart of gold award, there are some police officers who do their upmost to avoid doing their duty in relation to cannabis, because police officers are human too and some see the sheer nonsense of the law they are being asked to enforce, off course on the other end of the spectrum you have police officers who cannot wait to kick the doors down of some medicinal cannabis user, and hurl them into a police van, chuck them in a cell and want them charged and taken to court because they act with bias and prejudice, this is why it is important to change the existing laws in a way that is acceptable to those who can change it.

All this petty arguing here is side lining the issue here.

Given the law as it stands, I would call this a RESULT, as only recently a medi user was JAILED for 18 months, outrageous and a highly offensive waste of tax payers money.

Hahaha,Jack Herer needs to take Peters toe out of his mouth and give his head a shake if he believes the "truth" to be hate filled nonsense. Could have sworn Peter Quoted the same when trying to deny his own racist blogs as forgeries...oh hum...

Sinister Dexter wrote:
Hahaha,Jack Herer needs to take Peters toe out of his mouth and give his head a shake if he believes the "truth" to be hate filled nonsense. Could have sworn Peter Quoted the same when trying to deny his own racist blogs as forgeries...oh hum...

The truth of the matter is this. I play no active role in the legalisation campaign other than going round sites like this (and chewing the cud with mates). I personally don't know, in any way, any active member of any cannabis campaign.

I see Peter Reynolds campaign though, and I think it is an excellent way to get involved in meaningful ways for change. After a quick look, I think his comment warriors idea is brilliant. In a haze I thought up something similar but pictured it needing monetary incentives. Peter appears to have mobilised things voluntarily. Brilliant. An army of us with the truth behind us are friggin unstoppable! Every single thing I've read of Peter's that I have come across is an excellent advertisement for the positive influence of cannabis. Peter is an excellent face of positive cannabis law change.

Looking within from outside though, it looks like these 2 former CLEAR execs no longer have a place in any kind of meaningful positive cannabis campaign. Their credibility has turned to dust on this very thread, because they have being shown to stoop to the very lowest levels of smear and hate. I can't see how these people, by nature therefore, could ever be nice. I could never recommend CLEAR as an organisation with those people in the leadership. I recommend it without question with Peter Reynolds at the helm.

The entire cannabis community doesn't want people who stoop to the same disgustingly low level as the tabloids. Unfortunately for you this personal smear campaign has been totally self defeating - it immediately shows you for what you are, which is unpleasant.

This smear campaign has completely defeated any hopes these 2 former execs can ever have of being respected in the cannabis community. We look after each other here - we fight shoulder to shoulder. If you want to fight toe to toe, go away and crawl under whatever rock you came out from, then come out fighting for a different campaign - as a suggestion I'd go for a return of fox hunting or bear baiting.

If these 2 former execs had no part in this campaign, then they have the likes of the Brian_C and D Bell and welshstoner and PoppyCox and not least also yourself, Sinister Dexter, of course for continuing to mention their names as being victims, even heroes somehow during their hate filled rants. The association from these hate filled ranters has damned these two former execs forever as not nice people, for willing to allow or even support such disgusting negative action.

If these former execs had nothing to do with this, then they need to go round double quick berating the likes of those posters mentioned because these people are rapidly ending any future involvement these those two former execs can ever have anywhere within the world of cannabis.

Currently though, from an outsider looking in, it looks like those 2 former execs have absolutley no place within the cannabis community. Their continued poison presence, along with their hate filled apparent supporters, even in the background, are detrimental to the positive campaigns for change. Please support something else. You are not welcome here. You are harming our campaigns.

Pierre Oohlala wrote:
Someone give that police sarge a heart of gold award, there are some police officers who do their upmost to avoid doing their duty in relation to cannabis, because police officers are human too and some see the sheer nonsense of the law they are being asked to enforce, off course on the other end of the spectrum you have police officers who cannot wait to kick the doors down of some medicinal cannabis user, and hurl them into a police van, chuck them in a cell and want them charged and taken to court because they act with bias and prejudice, this is why it is important to change the existing laws in a way that is acceptable to those who can change it.

All this petty arguing here is side lining the issue here.

Given the law as it stands, I would call this a RESULT, as only recently a medi user was JAILED for 18 months, outrageous and a highly offensive waste of tax payers money.

There was a milkman from Burnley a few years back who was delivering weed to the old folk on his round, until someone grassed him up, and at which point he served time at her majesty's pleasure I seem to recall.

I always thought he should have been given a Pride of Britain award instead.

Even more with the judge and the sergeant here, and every other decent, intelligent, right minded individual like them making sense of the senseless. I'd have a massive awards bash for all of them with the best spread and the best entertainment.

For the minute those brave individuals will have to just make do with the knowledge that they are just good people. There isn't an award for that, but it's personally the best accolade I can ever give.

Jack Herer...There was a milkman from Burnley a few years back who was delivering weed to the old folk on his round, until someone GRASSED him up, and at which point he served time at her majesty's pleasure I seem to recall. Brilliant comedy thread everyone

DF I do know the reason that the European nations were persuaded by the U.S. to proscribe cannabis in the 1920´s , but it was about work,not about "rac".On balance the proscription was right. We need more legalised drugs like the loser at Russian Roulette needs a second hole in his head.

Unfounded negative association with the terrible Darfur genocide notwithstanding, in the context of legalisation, some comment warriors here might yet come to be feared as the "Ganjaweed"...

At this rate there may be truth to the rumour that our venerable Alma Mater is considering bestowing a D.Phil, honoris causa, for his services to finer reasoning and debate, upon Jack Herer, Esq.

┄DF I do know the reason that the
European nations were
persuaded by the U.S. to
proscribe cannabis in the 1920´s ,
but it was about work,not about
"rac".On balance the proscription
was right. We need more legalised
drugs like the loser at Russian
Roulette needs a second hole in
his head.”┄

Yep, if you totally ignore all the mood altering drugs now handed out like sweet's by your local approved witchdoctor , you'd be right all those people taking drugs they enjoy would be so bad for the world.

Oh and the shift from class C back to B, was because of the sudden drop in 'legal team' income from this stupidly pointless law.