Warmongers - #NOTINMYNAME STOP BOMBING SYRIA

As far as I am concerned they can all think what they like, say what they like, write what they like and all based on their beliefs, just so long as they don't pretend to be my friends.

You all must know my feelings by now - warmongers are not my friends any more than are murders.

I passed through Syria in 1972, a long time ago, and found people mostly hospitable and friendly if not wealthy. It is mostly desert towns with just a few larger cities. 

I crossed the border to Iraq and arrived at the village of  Al Qa'im, which has been totally destroyed and is now army barracks and oil worker accommodation; they villagers there, simple folk, showed great hospitality and generosity to what must have seemed weirdo's from the West. Baghdad was also a great place. 

I think many of the people I met are either dead or refugees now. 

Over the last few decades, Syria let in millions of refugees fleeing from the bombs in Iraq and troubles in Turkey, Lebanon and so on. 

Now they and their hosts have been scared by all sides so that they flee again. All sides knew that would happen. That is what was happening was no reason to kill and scare them even more.

The so-called terrorists are on all sides, the Syrian government, external governments from thousands of miles away now overhead bombing them, the ISIS or whatever name we want to give them, It's as if they are trying to clear Syria of people. It is an important stepping stone to oil and what the West seeks is that steeping stone.

There have been terror attacks in many countries in the world, so often committed by people from the very same countries they kill in. We bomb or do not bomb based purely on a semi-hidden but obvious agenda that our government and seemingly opposition parties support.

When you see UK troops on the streets of one if not the most surveyed spied upon countries in the world, housing and protecting the super-rich whilst people sleep on the streets with benefits removed, inadequate schooling and health care, where most of the people live in fear of somebody and the vast majority do not support their government...

...then that is a tyranny, then you will surely know that it has never been the IRA, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Saddam, Qaddafi, IS, or anyone outside the UK that has caused the problems. 

It has always been the UK and other Governments. Now they call it war, yet the "rules" of war are irrelevant because we are not at war against Syria; we are just bombing them for our own reasons and it is clear enough that Cameron either does not himself really understand or that he is simply telling porkies.

In Response to Tom Lloyd of the National Cannabis Coalition

Tom Lloyd (respect) wrote an article explaing why he feels it better to focus first on increasing availability of cannabis for medical purposes and below is my reply: 
https://tomclloyd.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/cannabis-for-medical-purposes-first-a-winning-strategy/

Hi Tom: in your article you say " achieving legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all is much more likely to be achieved sooner than legal access to cannabis for “recreational” purposes. " Thus perpetuating the myth that "recreational" use is not medically beneficial and that "medical users" do not take cannabis "recreationally" and furthermore that there should be some distinction in law and Human Rights between people that claim there use is purely one or the other, and you have neglected the religious or ritualistic, social users.

As I have said before, I know many people who may have called themselves recreational users but later in life realised medical benefits, myself included, as well as many of the leading campaigners; I also know people that use cannabis primarily for easing medical conditions who go on to use more cannabis simply to get high.

I do not understand, apart from the compassionate mitigation, why people should technically be regarded as a medical user up to the point where they get high, or a recreational user up to the point they relalise medical benefit or need. To me it unduly complicates matters.

In 1971 cannabis was banned as a medicine and one of the reasons given that it was being "misused" recreationally - hence the "Misuse of Drugs Act".

I can only see that the distinction when calling for medical cannabis will result in just that - more extracts and derivatives produced and marketted by pharmaceutical companies - as the Minister promised at the end of the cannabis debate in parliament recently.

You liken it to answering the questions you found easiest first, in exams. Yes we do that and for me it also worked well. But you say also "in case we run out of time". But surely there is no time-limit on repealing bad law? That cannot be a reason to focus on what "you" see as the easiest task first. To a person in dire medical need, clearly medical access is more important; to a man that has lost his freedom, job, maybe future career, insurance, travel experiences, maybe medical access is less important.

Certainly in The Netherlands, Portugal, Uruguay, now Jamaica and Canada, and some states and countries, "medical access" has not proceeded general law reform. In others it has.

But increasing medical access does not mean allowing people to grow their own, just as medical access to opiates has never eased the law on poppy cultivation and opium production.

Increasing medical access, if it comes first and leaves general decriminalisation behind, will whilst increasing the possibility of prescription products (noting how difficult it is for some people to get Sativex and the reluctance of even Dutch doctors to prescribe Bedrocan, will indeed remove the mitigation for those in dire medical need who cannot get the prescriptions and choose to grow their own, whilst leaving everybody else without the "acceptable" medical needs out in the cold.

An umbrella is supposed to protect us from the rain or sun. Should an umbrella be used to protect some first and hopefully come back later for the others, now wet (punished) when what we really want and need is an UMBRELLA THAT WILL COVER ALL.

Tom, you wrote "Frankly, it’s easier to arouse public empathy for a suffering child or disabled adult being helped by cannabis than it is for someone who “simply” wants to get stoned. That may not be fair, but it’s reality."

Yes it may well be easier to arouse public empathy for a UK suffering child than a foreign one stuck in the desert miles away, beyond our vision or experience, that not being fair but being a reality - but is it JUST? The easiest route, the route of less resistance, would be to sit and do nothing at all.

You wrote "successive governments have operated in an evidence-free zone. " That must be changed before any laws are being changed, not by any attempt to side-step, and that may well mean a new Government.

So how about a campaign based on Justice, or lack of it, when punishing a person for possession or cultivation for own use, where there are no victims, whatever the acclaimed reason for use, parallel for public empathy with a similar situation with, say, mint, or coffee? How about revealing the injustice in the punishments?

So in my life I chose to use cannabis - I suffer from no dreadful ailments as far as I know - I am not a follower of any religion or cannabis-ritual. Today I have a pain in my back, I use cannabis and the pain goes away. Tomorrow I have no pain, I use cannabis to get high. I know of no doctor outside of California that would give me a prescription for cannabis just because I woke up today with a pain in my back.

Fred has MS. He finds greater relief from smoking cannabis. He feels much better. He does not feel he needs cannabis right away for his MS. He decides to use cannabis to "get stoned" (another phrase for feel better). How should the law treat him if he is found growing cannabis?

Tom, you wrote "Once medical use of cannabis becomes widespread I’m sure that the resistance to consumption for all other purposes will fade much more quickly."

So is there a case where that has happened? I speak of opiates and opium again. Legal access to medical opiates has been with use for decades, yet it has led to no easing of the law on possession of opiates or heroin. Cocaine also. Amphetamines too.

In fact it has simply reinforced the false distinction between users and put the medicines firmly into the hands of profiteering drug companies.

You cannot have an umbrella group that appears not as an umbrella but simply as a campaign to enable sick people to get umbrellas prescribed by doctors whilst others get punished for even trying to make their own shelters from the storm.

Tom, respect what you are doing, retain your sympathy for those that are sick, but maybe more sympathy for all that have been, are being and will be, unjustly punished; until you have that sympathy we cannot expect the public to share it.

The pharmaceutical companies realise the potential profits just as did GW and their share-holders: I attended a share-holders meeting once, on behalf of another; there was no mention of cannabis medicines except GW's Sativex - it was ALL about money!

Those businesses have power to campaign for the legalisation and acceptance of their products, they do not need our help and they will not help us either - campaigning for general easing of the law could, if successful, bite into their profits if we can all legally grow our own.

I would like to see a group actively campaign, as a first step, for a halt to punishing people for possession or cultivation for own use unless there is a victim shown.

I believe that would be a true umbrella movement.

AS it stands, NORML, UPA, to some extent UKCSC and even CLEAR, dreadful as they are, focus mainly on medicinal users and NCC is running the risk of being seen as doing the same - it is in my opinion and umbrella group for medical cannabis campaigners and as such maybe should be looking for support in the drugs industry.




In reply to  https://tomclloyd.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/cannabis-for-medical-purposes-first-a-winning-strategy/

Cannabis for medical purposes first – a winning strategy?

Posted on 19 November 2015 by tomclloyd

One of the many things I have learned in my time as a drug policy adviser is that there is considerable room for improvement in the way in which we campaign for change. I could ponder the effectiveness of different tactics such as public demonstrations in the form of picnics, public consumption of cannabis to commemorate key dates and signing petitions. I could, but I won’t.   Instead I want to look at the aims of drug law reform with particular reference to cannabis and how best we can focus the campaign.
I’m pretty sure that we all want legal access to cannabis for adults and legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all. Of course, while closely linked, there are two clear and separate aims articulated in that vision for a better future. That presents us with options for developing a successful strategic approach; do we concentrate on both, or one at the expense of the other or do we time our efforts to deliver consecutive rather that concurrent impact? How best should we shape our campaigning strategy so that we achieve maximum change in minimum time?
Years ago, when sat for academic exams (with some success I modestly add!), I followed the wise advice from my father to read through all the questions, choose which ones to answer and then do the easiest ones first as your brain, subconsciously, got to grips with the harder ones. That system also meant that you didn’t run out of time, and lose certain marks, to write down the answers that you knew. In other words concentrate on the “easy” wins as a priority.
I see a real parallel in the campaign for cannabis law reform. In my view, and following the example of significant progress in the US, achieving legal access to cannabis for medical purposes for all is much more likely to be achieved sooner than legal access to cannabis for “recreational” purposes. I do not say that one is more important than the other, although that could be argued, as both are about unjust restrictions on human behaviour, but I do say that aiming for an “easier” target makes sense provided it does not harm the chances of succeeding in the more challenging quest.
Although there is a growing body of evidence to show that prohibition is a hugely costly, counter-productive and harmful failure facts alone are not enough to deliver change; successive governments have operated in an evidence-free zone. We need to go further and engage with people’s imaginations, arouse their emotions and empathy through telling compelling stories about real people. Of course we have to marshal the facts to challenge the lies, myths and distortions of the past 40 or so years of media coverage but our approach should also appeal to emotion and compassion in order to deliver change. Frankly, it’s easier to arouse public empathy for a suffering child or disabled adult being helped by cannabis than it is for someone who “simply” wants to get stoned. That may not be fair, but it’s reality.
I know there will be some (many?) who will feel that a narrow strategy focusing on medical use alone would be a betrayal of the many millions who do not consume cannabis for medical reasons. My argument is that this approach will hasten, not slow, the opportunity for legal enjoyment of cannabis for the full range of reasons: enhanced spirituality, creativity and enjoyment of music for example, as well as for relaxation and calm. Think of it, perhaps, as a wedge driven into the wall of prohibition at its weakest point; bringing the whole edifice down with the minimum effort, maximum impact and in the shortest time.
A focused, determined campaign to achieve legal access to cannabis for medical purposes could unite the cannabis law reform movement, harness tremendous energy, expertise and commitment and, after decades of lack of progress, deliver the change we all want and need.
Once medical use of cannabis becomes widespread I’m sure that the resistance to consumption for all other purposes will fade much more quickly.
I’ll now stand back to await the cries of protest that I’m sure to have provoked…

UK Government caught out lying about the cannabis plant, again.

It is simply miraculous that GW Pharmaceuticals can make an expensive spray form of whole cannabis plant extract simply by dissolving the plant in alcohol and adding some flavour, when the plant itself in the UK is scheduled as having no medicinal uses.

Secondly it is sad that cannabis grown in the UK has no medicinal value yet in Holland the plant grown there has a medicinal value when grown by a pharmaceutical company, Bedrocan is irradiated and standardised cannabis bud.

In the US they have been giving cannabis joints for medicinal use to a small number of people for DECADES so why do they do that if they at teh same time also deny the medicinal properties.

Thirdly, until 1971, cannabis tincture was prescribed; in his herbal book Culpeper listed some medicinal uses and it has been known that it was used in ancient Egypt and China as a medicine, and Queen Victoria herself used the plant as a medicine.

So what had happened to make cannabis in the UK so useless as a medicine since 1971? Is there something wrong with our air or water or sunlight or soils?

The only change is in the law, of course, so the law no favours pharmaceutical companies that hold us to ransom by charging such high prices for their Sativex?

The Government says Sativex is available on prescription but it is actually available only to a few that can persuade their doctors and then many have to pay - so that is a blatant distortion of truth again.

There are countless reports from people that suffer terrifying ailments and find ease or even cures from the cannabis plant itself and it was that anecdotal evidence that led GW Pharmaceuticals to invest in and study the plant and its medicinal uses that the Government denies.

There is only one word to describe the Government response - LIARS! 

 

Government responded
Herbal cannabis is listed in Schedule 1 as a drug with no recognised medicinal uses outside research. A substantial body of scientific evidence shows it is harmful and can damage human health.

The Government will not encourage the use of a Schedule 1 controlled drug based on anecdotal evidence. It is important that a medicine is very thoroughly trialled to ensure it meets rigorous standards before being licensed and placed on the market so that doctors and patients are sure of its efficacy and safety.
Cannabis in its raw form (herbal cannabis) is not recognised as having any medicinal purposes in the UK. There is already a clear regime in place to enable medicines (including those containing controlled drugs) to be developed and subsequently prescribed and supplied to patients via healthcare professionals. This regime is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which issues Marketing Authorisations for drugs that have been tried and tested for their safety and efficacy as medicines in the UK.
It is up to organisations to apply for Marketing Authorisation for products that they believe have potential medicinal purposes so that these can be subject to the same stringent regime and requirements that all medicines in the UK are subjected to.
Since 2010 UK patients can use the cannabis-based medicine ‘Sativex’ for the treatment of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis. ‘Sativex’ can also be prescribed for other conditions at the prescribing doctor’s risk. ‘Sativex’ was rigorously tested for its safety and efficacy before receiving approval, and is distinguished from cannabis in its raw form. It is a spray which is standardised in composition, formulation and dose and developed to provide medicinal benefits without a psychoactive effect. Due to its low psychoactive profile ‘Sativex’ was rescheduled from Schedule 1 and placed in Schedule 4 Part 1 to enable its availability for use in healthcare in the UK.
The MHRA is open to considering marketing approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products should a product be developed. As happened in the case of ‘Sativex’, the Home Office will also consider issuing a licence to enable trials of new medicines to take place under the appropriate ethical approvals.
In view of the potential harms associated with the use of cannabis in its raw form and the availability of avenues for medicinal development, the Government does not consider it appropriate to make changes to the control status of raw or herbal cannabis.
The Government’s view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and regulations made under the Act continue to facilitate the development of medicines which are made from Schedule 1 controlled drugs. The legislation is aimed at protecting the public from the potential harms of drugs and is not an impediment to research into these drugs or development of medicines.
In 2013 the Home Office undertook a scoping exercise targeted at a cross-section of the scientific community, including the main research bodies, in response to concerns from a limited number of research professionals that Schedule 1 status was generally impeding research into new drugs.
Our analysis of the responses confirmed a high level of interest, both generally and at institution level, in Schedule 1 research. However, the responses did not support the view that Schedule 1 controlled drug status impedes research in this area. While the responses confirmed Home Office licensing costs and requirements form part of a number of issues which influence decisions to undertake research in this area, ethics approval was identified as the key consideration, while the next most important consideration was the availability of funding.
Home Office

Peace is more than the absence of war

So who looks at any possible solutions to the eye for an eye philosophy? is there a solution? is war a natural part of the animal called (wo)man? 

 

Is the world too big to change?

 

My personal belief is that to put an end to war we need to spread peace. Not just the idea of peace but the experience, the feeling, the knowing how to get that feeling, and it would need to be a feeling available practically to every human being irrespective of health, wealth, education, religion or no religion, in all parts of the world, given freely and not through challenging indoctrination or preaching religion. It would have to be universally acceptable and beneficial, like air or water, like breath itself. But I know that in order for that to happen, there is a massive amount of concept, misunderstanding, fear and opposition to overcome.

 

The process starts with me, the process starts with you.

 

I can only tell you about my personal experiences of how and when I was shown how to find that peace within inside me in 1972: it cost me nothing but a little effort and some acceptance of a gift.

 

Once peace is found within inside oneself, it spreads, it helps overcome fear, anger, hatred, greed and it leads to contentment.

 

World peace is something else, an end to war would be a start, but even where there is no war people sometimes fail to find peace, for peace is not simply the absence of war.

I am so happy to know that in this day that experience is on offer, for free.

http://www.wopg.org/

First of its Kind Study Shows Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving

First of its Kind Study Shows Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving
http://www.ccguide.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=21223

Anna Hunt
Waking Times

Friday 30 Oct 2015


Researchers at the University of Iowa’s (UI’s) National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) published a new study that examined how inhaling cannabis affects driving. The results may help shape the rules of how law enforcement handles drivers under the influence of cannabis.

“Alcohol is the most common drug present in the system in roadside stops by police; cannabis is the next most common, and cannabis is often paired with alcohol below the legal limits.

We know alcohol is an issue, but is cannabis an issue or is cannabis an issue when paired with alcohol? We tried to find out.” ~ Tim Brown, associate research scientist at NADS and co-author of the study.

The new study, conducted by Gary Gaffney, Tim Brown and Gary Milavetz, put 18 participants through a 35 to 45 minute simulated driving test, with one group having consumed alcohol, another having vaporized cannabis, and a third group under the influence of both alcohol and cannabis. The effort was sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Institute of Drug Abuse, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Four important findings were reported:

Drivers under the influence of only cannabis showed little driving impairment when compared to drivers under the influence of alcohol or both substances.

Drivers with blood concentrations of 13.1 ug/L THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the active ingredient in cannabis) showed similar impairment to drivers with a .08 breath alcohol concentration, the legal limit in most states. The current legal limit for THC in Washington and Colorado is 5 ug/L.

Drivers who use alcohol and cannabis together weave more on a virtual roadway than ones that used either substance independently, although consuming both does not double the impairment.

Analyzing a driver’s oral fluids can detect recent use of cannabis although it should not be considered a reliable measure of impairment.

For the study, researchers selected 13 men and five women between the ages of 21 and 37 who reported drinking alcohol and using marijuana no more than three times a week. After spending the night at the UI’s facilities to ensure sobriety, participants were taken to NADS for “dosing” followed by a simulated drive in a 1996 Malibu sedan mounted in a 24-feet diameter dome.

Before the simulation test, each participant had 10 minutes to drink an alcoholic beverage, or a juice with flavoring that mimicked alcohol, and then another 10 minutes to inhale a placebo or vaporized cannabis. The goal was to have some participants’ blood alcohol level at about 0.065 percent, and some participants’ blood concentrations at about 13.1 ug/L THC, and some under the influence of both.

Once in the simulator, drivers were assessed on: weaving within the lane; how often the car left the lane; and the speed of weaving. The researchers reported that drivers with only alcohol in their systems showed impairment in all three areas. They reported that participants only under the influence of cannabis showed impairment only with weaving within the lane.

Andrew Spurgin, a postdoctoral research fellow with the UI College of Pharmacy, shared another important fact as part of the study:

“Everyone wants a Breathalyzer which works for alcohol because alcohol is metabolized in the lungs. But for cannabis this isn’t as simple due to THC’s metabolic and chemical properties.”

The study’s finding are not likely to have any immediate effect on the current legal limits for THC, but hopefully it will slow the attempts to deploy devices for instant roadside THC testing before further research can be conducted.

About the Author

Anna Hunt is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an entrepreneur with over a decade of experience in research and editorial writing. She and her husband run a preparedness e-store outlet at www.offgridoutpost.com, offering GMO-free storable food and emergency kits. Anna is also a certified Hatha yoga instructor. She enjoys raising her children and being a voice for optimal human health and wellness. Read more of her excellent articles here. Visit her essential oils store here.

Source:
http://now.uiowa.edu/2015/06/ui-studies-impact-marijuana-driving

This article (First of its Kind Study Shows that Cannabis Has Little to No Significant Effect on Driving) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/10/30/first-of-its-kind-study-shows-cannabis-has-little-to-no-significant-effect-on-driving/

HMP Blantyre House (Taken From Time For Cannabis: The Prison Years 1991 to 1995 by Alun Buffry)

BLANTYRE HOUSE

From Time For Cannabis: The Prison Years 1991 to 1995

Available on Amazon as paperback and Kindle

After writing the previous chapters, I had wanted to write about Blantyre House, a totally different and altogether more positive experience with a fresh start, rid of the influence of the Whitemoor memories, so I had decided to take a break.

Unintentionally, that break lasted 17 years!

Now I feel I can comfortably write this chapter, not that the long gap in time was due entirely to the Whitemoor experience, after all, I left that place a couple of years before starting this book. But there have been other things on my mind, which included co-founding and running a small political party based on the single issue of cannabis, travelling as I could afford and a lot of other writing

So, having been approved for HMP Blantyre House, Gary (the inmate travelling with me) and myself were all packed up and ready to leave Whitemoor as soon as we could.

We had heard favourable reports of the relaxed regime there and were looking forward to seeing our bridge-playing, ecstasy-smuggler friends Will and Tom along with a few others from Whitemoor.

This is what the Department of Justice says about Blantyre House in 2015:

"Blantyre House is an adult male category 'C/D' resettlement prison. The buildings themselves are located in a country house which was taken over by the Prison Commission in 1954, having previously operated as a Fegan Home. It was a Detention Centre for young offenders before converting to a resettlement prison for long term prisoners.

"Regime: The regime at Blantyre is designed to prepare men for their eventual release. Within the first six months it is compulsory for the men to continue to build upon their education, which will include obtaining Basic Skills qualifications and taking part in courses such as healthy lifestyles, social and life skills, independent living and preparation for work. There are also a number of vocational courses on offer including IT, Dry-lining and Plastering. Once risk-assessed prisoners are allowed the opportunity to develop their education by attending external colleges to obtain further employment skills. As well as education, prisoners are able to work as cleaners, kitchen workers, orderlies etc."

http://www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/blantyre-house

At Whitemoor on the day of our transfer, after the traditional slops for breakfast, we were escorted through numerous gates along with our possessions. We were taken to a holding cell to await the arrival of the screws and the transportation.

We were told to change into our own clothing by the screw from Blantyre House, which we gladly did. I felt like tearing up the prison clothing. But within minutes he came back and told us we would have to change again because the Whitemoor administration would not allow us in our own clothing whilst still inside the prison. So we changed, again. We did not want to get into trouble before we even left and anyway we were used to petty rules being thrown at us seemingly willy-nilly.

Once we were inside the prison van and outside the prison grounds, we were told we could change back into our own clothing again. The screw actually apologised. He said that at Blantyre House everyone knew the rules and he repeated them.

No alcohol or drugs, no violence or verbal abuse, obey the laws of the land and commit to a minimum of half a day at education every week.

They also told us to be careful with the food, especially the chips, as it was served hot and may be the first hot food we had eaten in prison. That was wrong of course but they did not know that I had been cooking much of my own food along with Ken and others, in the small kitchen on the wing, but they were correct about the Blantyre food as I was to find out.

The journey from Peterborough to Kent took a few hours and we were given sandwiches. The time went quick even though we could not see the scenery.

HMP Blantyre House was in Kent near the village of Goudhurst, close to Cranbrook, beautiful countryside famous for growing hops used to manufacture the drug alcohol.

As we arrived at Blantyre House, pulled in through the gates; we climbed out of the van and there stood my friend Will.

Will took us to our "rooms" inside the large wooden building. He said we would be sharing for a while but later would move to other rooms; this was the reception cell.

The cell contained two bunk beds but Gary and I were the only two that would be using them that night. Apparently we would be here a few days and then moved to another "room". We had our own keys. The room was next to the Principal Officer's (The PO) office; I assumed it was so they could better keep an eye on us.

Will also told us that he would take us to the dining hall as dinner was about to be served, then after that we would go to see the PO's office to "check in".

Afterwards, Will said, he would show us the prison grounds where we were free to wander at almost any time between 8 am and 8 pm. After 8 pm we had to be inside the main building and the outside doors would be locked, but we could associate in rooms until 10 pm.

I do not remember what I had for dinner except that it was vegetarian and hot and quite tasty. Will had arranged for us to share a table with himself and Tom from Whitemoor and a few others; one was Terry P. who was doing time for his part is an horrific robbery.

There were about 100 inmates at Blantyre and the dining room was crowded. Will told us that we would probably be put on washing up duty the next day, and do that, as was traditional for new arrivals, until more new inmates arrived. Then, he said, we would probably be put on cleaning and after that we would either do outside work or college, or do full time education. Being on my Open University course in computing and busy building my database on Ancient Egypt, education would suit me.

After dinner, as promised, Will took us to the Principle Officer's office. Gary Catton, the screw that had interviewed me in Whitemoor, was the PO on duty. Officers, though, weren't called "screws" or even "kangas" here. It took just a few minutes of confirming our names and numbers and being told that after breakfast the next day we had to report to the kitchen and do washing up duty.

After that, Will took Gary and I for a walk-about; he showed us the education block, canteen, church building and gym. There was quite a large green area where rugby and other sport was played.

On the Saturday, just two days after arriving, we joined about twenty others along with several officers, for a five mile country ramble. It was amazing, instead of being forced to march together as I had anticipated, we were all allowed to walk at our own paces. I found myself walking down a beautiful and quiet grove where the trees were brown and freshly fallen leaves were scattered about, passing large gates to houses and small cottages. I felt there may have been a babbling brook somewhere beyond but out of our sight.

After where I had been the last few years and even my home life before that, this was a new world. I felt free and trusted.

Beyond that area there was a fence with an open gate and the other side of that we saw several inmates' allotments, a chicken run, and a large field part of which inmates had worked on for use as a small golf course.

We walked right around the inside of the fence. We walked to places where we could not be seen from the main buildings. There was no razor wire and no visible cameras. It was hard to believe that we were not being watched. A result of Whitemoor paranoia?

I looked up at the trees but still saw no cameras. The only razor wire, Will said, was near the canteen, to stop local kids from climbing over and stealing stuff!

What an incredible change from Whitemoor. Here they talked about the "ethos" and the Governor, Jim Semple said that he did not like to be called "Sir". It was difficult at first to know who was a screw and who was a con.

I slept well that night, although Gary complained that I had snored loudly.

Suck it and see: LSD in Kabul

Taken from All About My Hat - The Hippy Trail 1972
http://www.buffry.org.uk/allaboutmyhat.html
https://www.facebook.com/allaboutmyhat
available on Amazon

Suddenly Diane said “Hey, you want some of these?”
She held out her hand and in her palm were four or so small squares of blank paper.
“What's that?” asked Al “looks like paper!” he laughed.
“It's acid,” she said, “LSD, you know, Lucy in the Sky. I got some from a French guy. He reckoned they're really good! Want to try?”
Al found her manner too seductive to resist.
“How many do we take? How strong are they? How long do they last? I've never done it.”
"I don't know,” she said “I've got four. You take two and I'll take two.”
“I think I'll just take one first time,” he said.
With that Diane popped one small square of paper into Al's mouth. “Suck it and see,” she laughed.
Al laughed and then frowned as he watched Diane put the other three squares into her own mouth.
She washed it down with a fizzy drink.
“So this is going to be a trip”, thought Al.
He thought about the books he had read – “Aldoux Huxley and Timothy Leary, about LSD and other psychedelic drugs: there was that book by the guy that gave acid to dolphins and then took it himself and put himself into an “isolation tank” and had met beings made out of light. What was his name? Oh yeah, John Lily's Eye of the Cyclone. Oh and the Carlos Castaneda's tales about a Shaman that took psychedelic plants to make contact with beings on other levels.
“The Beatles of course – was that before or after they had gone to Rishikesh with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
“The whole hippy thing was a lot to do with LSD and love and peace and flowers, so that is obviously what it's about – a good time, a spiritual time – just probably stronger than hash.”
He looked up from his thoughts and started to look around the courtyard.
It looked different!
Al thought that he hadn't noticed the bells hanging from the edge of the roof, or the bright red flowerpots that held the small trees. And there seemed to be more flowers than before. Yet he'd been there several times before.
Some of the people there, the Westerners, started to look quite funny the way they were dressed. Bandanna’s! He hadn't noticed them – in Kabul – they looked really out of place!
Funny how so many were wearing blue jeans, including the two guys serving – and they had short hair, the customers all had long hair.
Weird that people came here to Sigis to eat food they could get back home.
Some of the people looked like people Al had known, or like mixtures of two of them. Several times he felt like shouting out to them, but then they moved and turned into themselves again. How strange, how funny.
He started to laugh and turned to Diane to tell her his thoughts – she was looking at a colourful bird, some sort of canary, that was standing on on top of a small green shrub, almost motionless, as she was. She looked mesmerised, so Al kept quiet, laughing again in his head.
Al turned back to look at the people again.
That guy looked familiar.
As he looked at the guy, the guy stood up and walked over.
“Hi!”, he said. “Are you Al?”
Al felt a little uneasy at that – how did the guy know his name?
“You from Norwich? I'm Pete – remember me – Pete Roscoe?”
“Wow,” said Al, “You are Pete Roscoe, yeah, I remember you of course, I thought you were somebody that looked like him, I mean you!”, he laughed.
Al had known Pete Roscoe back in Norwich but had had no idea that he too, would be heading for India. Pete had also known John and Keith.
“How you doing man?” said Pete, “How long you been here, where you going? ”
Al answered: “I went to India with Keith and then I got sick – Infectious Hepatitis and dysentery, nearly died, had no money, on my own, in Haridwar in the Northern Foothills. But I got to hospital in Delhi – I've been in hospital here too. Just waiting to get some money to get home. I'm with Diane. I want to get her home too."
He turned to introduce Pete to Diane. She was staring into a glass of fizzy drink and quietly giggling.
“Hi Pete!”
Al knew that Pete had known John and maybe Mike, so he asked: “Have you heard anything about John and Mike? Keith and I left them with the van in Antalya in Turkey and caught a boat to Iskenderun – we hitched from there across Syria to Baghdad. I haven't heard from them – we were supposed to meet them back in Istanbul but decided to carry on to India. Are they back in England yet?”
“God what a drag about John - you don't know what happened, do you?”, asked Pete.
“No,” said Al.
“Wow man, I hate to tell you this,” said Pete, “John was killed in a crash the night you left them in Turkey. Mike had broken his legs and some ribs and was in hospital there for several weeks. I heard they crashed into a parked truck on a bend at night – John was driving – he swerved out and probably saved Mike's life but was killed himself. Everyone was real sick about it, man.”
It may have been because Al was still in some doubt that this was actually Pete Roscoe – maybe that cushioned the blow for him – he was tripping on acid and just been told his best friend John had died hours after he had last seen him.
So Pete and Al chatted a while longer, Pete was on his way to India. Al gave him some advice about being really careful about what he ate and drank, to keep hydrated, and not to drink the Ganges.
Then it was time that Pete said he would have to go as he had people to meet. They agreed to meet in the same place at lunch time the next day.
Al ordered another two teas with milk. It tasted weird. Different. He didn't drink his.
Then he felt it time to go and explore the streets.
“Come on Diane, let's go for a walkabout. I want some of those spicy potatoes and corn on the cob I've seen..”
So they went outside to see the street.
“Where are we?” asked Diane.
“Sigis, Chicken Street!” said Al.
“Or is it? Hang on, it's not Chicken Street, we must have come out of a different door!,” exclaimed Al - “Wait a minute, there's that Kabul restaurant place – it is Chicken Street – wow, it looks different, I never noticed all those ribbons and flags – hey be careful where you walk, there's holes all over the place – hey look at that donkey, it's only got three legs!”
“Hey this is great, let's go look at Flower Street!”
“Okay,” said Diane. She wasn't saying much but she had a big grin. She took hold of Al's arm.
“Don't let me fall down a hole, it's really tricky up here with the wind.” she said.
Al couldn't feel any wind and we were not high up at all, from the road – well I guess if we're 6000 feet above sea level we must be “up here”.
“Six thousand feet and climbing!” he said for no real reason.
So they strolled down Chicken Street towards Flower Street, looking in the shop windows and at stalls that Al thought he had never seen before. Everything except the road itself was much more colourful and shiny than he remembered, except the road had many massive piles of dung on it. As he looked, he saw a donkey adding more to it!
All the local merchants seemed to be nodding and smiling at them today! Al thought they all looked like – well they were on something - they were tripping too! Well, thought Al, I guess you've got to be on something to live here – it's like magic.
They reached the end of Chicken Street where it joined Flower Street.
It looked really busy with people that obviously weren't tripping.. It didn't look magic at all. Dark and damp with too many hidden spots, thought Al. Despite the flowers it was not inviting. Noisy too. Chicken Street had seemed very quiet – probably all the shoppers were down here.
“Let's go back – or down by the river, we could see the Mosque,” he said.
“Yeah let's go that way, to the Mosque,” laughed Diana. “It doesn't matter where we land, we'll be OK.”
It seemed like hours before they reached the Mosque and Al had to sit down.
He sat on a low wall outside a building where he could see the Mosque and got lost in thoughts about the good and bad of religions and how the bad side made it hard to believe, yet so many had fallen for religions, as if it was some sort of spell to control people. Al did not want to be a part of religion – he wanted to be apart from them all. “If there's a God,” he thought, “it's not in religion.”
He heard Diane shouting “Get off, go away. Help!”
He turned to see Diane standing on the wall and below her were three dogs. They were jumping up at her in a friendly way, thought Al.
“It's OK, they're just trying to be friendly, just get down and pet them!”
“No they're trying to bite me, they won't leave me alone. They might have rabies!”
“But they're only little,” said Al.
“No they're not, they're massive. They're not dogs – they're wolves. Help! Please!” She was really freaked.
Al just shooed the dogs away. They went off down the street, stopped and looked back. Al shouted “Go!” Off they went, hunting for food probably.
He helped Diane climb down. She hugged him.
“Well obviously, cos she took three, she's right out of it”, thought Al.
He grabbed her by the arm and they went back to Sigis where they could relax in a good friendly atmosphere and listen to some good rock music.
“Kabul streets at night”, he said, “Not good on acid!”
That was a good decision. Diane calmed down and they both enjoyed the rest of the trip, going back to the Peace Hotel with a nice piece of hash to smoke, until they dozed off as dawn was breaking and the Mullahs were calling the so-called faithful to prayer, from their minaret towers.

My comment on the article below

It's been quite some time since I read the sort of nonsense written here by H Woods. For starters he suggests that cannabis, a plant, should be classed alongside dangerous drugs such as heroin (and presumably he feels the same way as that highly dangerous and often addictive drug, alcohol, let alone the killer, tobacco).

It sounds a little like mixing sweets with tablets - many people may be tempted after taking a sweet to try a tablet if they are all in the same bag. Likewise, if cannabis was classed in law as of equal danger to heroin and cocaine, surely when person tries cannabis, which is easily found on almost any main street in the UK, discovering that it actually eases stress and pain, has the feel-good-factor, and for the very vast number of people has no bad effects, why not try another drug if they are all equally dangerous.

Woods says he has met cannabis users. Well, I am now 65 and have used cannabis off-and-on most of my adult life, and I have had no problems. I have met literally thousands of cannabis smokers in about 30 countries that I have travelled in and apart from the fact that some may be eccentric, they were all decent people. Of course dealers have led some from one illegal "drug" to another but that is no reason per se to punish either those that have taken other drugs or those that have not, unless of course they have harmed others. It would be like punishing all people that like a drink because of those that became alcoholics or became violent or abusive (something one does not see amongst cannabis users).

Woods goes on to label the millions of people in the UK that do take illegal drugs as in a stupor, and those that supply as "evil". Woods fails to recognise the damage caused by many over-the-counter medications such as aspirin that kills hundreds annually, or the medications dished out by doctors, many pills with serious side-effects (read the warnings on the packets - side-effects ranging from impotence to loss of appetite, inability to coordinate, sleeplessness, depression and even suicide). It is undeniable that many pills need to be taken with other pills to try to counteract those terrible and terrifying side-effects.

So what to do with those (whether in white coats or not) that supply those harmful and killer drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, as well as pills?

Woods also denies the testimonies not just of people in the UK that claim to find relief to terrible illnesses and find that relief through consumption of the cannabis plant, albeit illegal, being forced to risk prison by growing their own or buying from illegal suppliers: people with MS, epilepsy, arthritis, damage from accidents or just plain stress; more recently those dying from cancers.

Woods fails to take into account that here in the UK, Sativex (which is simply cannabis dissolved in alcohol in an expensive oral spray form) is prescribed by doctors and supplied by pharmacies (it is exactly the same as can be made at home for own use by people that grow their own yet can be sent to prison). Fails to recognise that herbal cannabis is prescribed in countries such as Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy ... and more .. as a pharmaceutical plant-product called Bedrocan.

Woods ignores the dozens of reports from around the world that state cannabis has medicinal value and is comparatively safe ("remarkably safe" in the words of Harvard University Professor Grinspoon; safer than most common foods in the words of DEA Judge Francis Young).

Woods fails to recognise that the UK's own Government-appointed study group, the ACMD, has stated over the years that cannabis should NOT be classed alongside heroin or even class B drugs as it now is.

But most of all Woods has blundered by attempting to promote prohibition policy which has quite clearly not just failed but caused more damage to people's lives than the drugs themselves - even the United Nations Drugs team says that.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Legal-cannabis-Class/story-28030378-detail/story.html
Plymouth Herald, 22October 2015

Legal? No, cannabis should be a Class A

I READ in the Herald on October 10, cannabis campaigner in plea to MPs.
Daryl Sullivan has written to MPs for their help in legalising cannabis.
Cannabis like all drugs are bad, it should be a Class A drug as with all other drugs.
There has been proof that cannabis causes mental health problems, psychosis, schizophrenia and linked to suicides. It is not harmless at all and addictive. I have seen people on cannabis they were in a state of stupor.
Ninety nine percent of crime is drug related. Drugs and drug dealers are evil, we need to keep this vile damaging garbage off the streets. MPs say not to legalising cannabis.
H WOODS
Plymouth

UK Government needs Alchemists to make more profitable cannabis extract medicines.

The UK Government will not consider legalising cannabis but plan to invest more money into research for the production and supply of highly profitable pharmaceutical cannbinoids.

In plain language: we plan to make as much money as possible from sick people needing cannabinoids and the rest of you can go rot in prison or pay fines if we can get the police to deal with you. Cannabis has no medical value unless it is dissolved in alcohol (like Sativex) and sprayed up your bum.!

they want to make medicine from aplant with no medicinal value (according to UK drug schedules) by adding alcohol.  That sure is alchemy.

MOSES, MAGIC AND WRITING

One of the peoples who were around at the time, actually little more than desert nomads living in tents and herding goats, were the original Israelites. A lot of our knowledge of the Israelites comes from the Holy Bible, in the Old Testament which makes mention of the Egyptians and the Pharaoh. There is no mention of any specific Pharaoh, except one (I Kings 14) called King Shishak, whomay have been the Pharaoh Sheshonq III (835 - 783 BC), but this is almost one thousand years after the time I am talking about now. In fact, as recorded in the Bible, the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians and, for generation after generation, were treated cruelly and used to build cities and monuments. There is no mention of the Israelites in the few contemporary Egyptian stories that we have discovered and no mention in the Bible of any pyramid building (although there is a reference to a capstone). The only building task named in the Bible is connected to the city of Pi-Ramesse, which was somewhere in the Nile Delta and long destroyed.                            

Reading and writing had been around in Egypt for at least 1500 years by this time, but was reserved for royalty, scientists, doctors, astrologers, military commanders and courtiers. The ‘ordinary’ people and certainly the slaves, had very little education outside the family group or community and lived very basic lives, working hard from a very early age. They were involved with farming, goat-herding, construction, service to the rich, army duties and worshipping their various gods. A papyrus has been found that lists the cost of feeding one large group of pyramid construction workers; it seems that they mostly had to survive on things like unleavened bread, onions and garlic! The rich, no doubt, enjoyed a wide range of fish, birds, meat, vegetables and fruit and almost certainly drank wine and beer from very early times. Many of the tomb paintings in Egypt show scenes of life for the Pharaohs and their courtiers, including scenes of hunting, fishing and even making wine.

There is, however, a very interesting and relevant story in the Bible, about an Israelite who became very powerful and went against the Pharaoh and eventually won, enabling the slaves to escape Egypt. The story is called Exodus and the hero was Moses.

The Bible story tells that the Pharaoh strongly believed in astrology and when his Royal Astrologer predicted that an Israelite boy would be born and grow to overthrow the Pharaoh, he hit back and cruelly ordered that all the newest born Israelite boys should be slaughtered. So Moses’ mother decided to hide him in a basket in the bulrushes which grew along the Nile. Well, the story goes, the Pharaoh’s daughter, or one of them, happened to be bathing in the river and spotted the basket and , after sending her maids to bring it back, looked inside and saw the beautiful boy baby whom she named Moses. If you think about the name Moses and realise some of the Pharaohs had names like Amenophis, Tuthmosis and Dudimose, you may see some similarity. Pharaoh’s daughter was so in love with this baby that she decided to keep him for herself and educated him in reading and writing, which the Israelite slaves could not do. She brought him up into the Egyptian way of life, keeping him in ignorance of his true origins. This was a big mistake for the Pharaoh, because eventually Moses grew up and discovered he was really an Israelite and turned against the Pharaoh.

Moses adopted a different religion to the Pharaoh and worshipped the Hebrew god Yahweh. Moses also became very sensitive to the suffering of the slaves, his own people, and the scripture tells us he received instruction from his god to end the bondage of the slaves. Moses went to the Pharaoh and said “Let my people go!”, or words to that effect. Of course the Pharaoh wasn’t too happy about letting all this cheap labour go, so he refused and Moses had to resort to threats of violence and destruction, claiming that his god, Yahweh, was much more powerful than the Pharaohs’ gods all put together.

It is uncertain who the Pharaoh was when Moses was born, or when Exodus happened. Maybe it was Merneptah in the XIX dynasty, 1213 - 1203 BC as some claim, but other historians think differently. In his book ‘A Test of Time’, David Rohl presents a good argument that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Dudimose, the last Pharaoh of the thirteenth dynasty, about 450 years earlier. Rohl also reconsiders the dating of the dynasties based on lists of Israel’s Kings. The Bible tells us that the Exodus was 480 years before the founding of the Temple of Jerusalem by Solomon. An early Christian historian Eusebius, referring to the work of an earlier Jewish historian, Artapanus, tells us about a Pharaoh called Palmanothes, who was cruel to the Hebrews He had a daughter called Merris who adopted a Hebrew boy called Mousos. Merris then married a Pharaoh called Khenephres who eventually became jealous of Mousos, causing Mousos to flee. Rohl argues that Khenephres was in fact the Greek version of the name Khaneferre, meaning ‘the perfection of Re shines in the horizon’, the twenty-third ruler of the thirteenth dynasty, Sobekhotep IV. Sobehhotep IV was a great and powerful ruler. Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus and this was when Dudimose ruled. According to the historian Manetho the reign of this Pharaoh witnessed a ‘blast of God’. Other writers place Moses in the eighteenth dynasty and some even claim he was the same person as the Pharaoh Akhenaten. The truth is that nobody knows who the Pharaoh of Exodus really was.

Although there had been magicians in Egypt for many years, Moses’ magic was said - in the Bible - to be a different sort of ‘magic’. The difference was that Moses prayed to his God Yahweh for the miracles, whereas the Egyptian magicians were said to have performed their feats through powers which they had learned.

Moses, whether through prayer or magic, was able to do some very magical and wonderfully nasty things to the Pharaoh and his people, eventually starting plagues, turning the river to blood and causing the death of the new-born. The Pharaoh had to let them go. But that was not the end of the story because the Pharaoh cheated and went back on his word, leading his armies to bring his slaves back. This was really the worst thing he could have done, because somehow Moses was able to pray and part the waters of the sea, just long enough to let the Israelites through, but, when the Pharaoh and his army went through to chase them, the waters fell back together, drowning them all. Moses, with his brother Aaron, led the people on and on through the deserts, performing many miracles, causing ‘manna’ to fall from heaven, which they could eat when they were starving, as well as getting water out of a rock when they were thirsty. Moses had been taught how to read by the Egyptians and wrote down the stories that had been passed down through the generations, about how the world was made, Adam and Eve, Noah and his ark and who was whose son. In fact Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

As I said, there were many stories of magicians in Egypt long before Moses and in fact documents have been found with stories of similar miracles or magic being performed even as long as 1200 years earlier. For instance, the parting of the waters story can be seen in an old papyrus document, called the Westcar Papyrus, which was written in the early part of the XVIIIth dynasty, about 1550 BC, but it is clear that it has been copied from stories dating from the time of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, 2550 BC. The story is told to King Cheops by a person called Baiuf-Ra and is said to have happened in the time of the King’s father, Snorfu. It is about a powerful magician called Tchatcha-em-ankh (sorry about that, but I didn’t name him!). Well, apparently, one day old Snorfu was feeling a little miserable so called to his nobles to do something to cheer him up. After a while they brought in Tchatcha-em-ankh and he suggested that the king go out on the lake. “For”, said the magician, “the heart of Your Majesty will rejoice and be happy when you sail about and see the beautiful thickets which are on the lake.” Then Tchatcha-em-ankh persuaded Snorfu to allow him to arrange the trip and the story tells that he brought ‘twenty ebony paddles inlaid with gold and also twenty young virgins having beautiful heads of hair and lovely forms and shapely limbs and twenty nets wherein these virgins may dress themselves instead of in their own normal clothes.’ The virgins were to row and sing for his Majesty. Well, believe it or not, the old king was cheered up and had a very good time, until suddenly the leader of the rowers got her hair tangled up and her favourite piece of jewellery made of ‘new turquoise’ fell into the river. This made her stop rowing and singing, then, because she was their leader, all the other girls stopped as well. When Snorfu found out why she was so upset he promised to recover the jewellery and called for Tchatcha-em-ankh. The magician then did a spell (‘spoke certain words of power’) and caused one part of the lake to fold up and over on top of the other and so found the ornament. Snorfu was well pleased and arranged a big feast to celebrate.

This story tells of the power of just one magician, although there are many other stories and they are all just as impressive and reliable as any story ever told or written anywhere. You may choose to believe them or not.

There is another story from the time of Cheops about one of his sons, called Herutataf and a powerful magician called Teta ‘who is one hundred and ten years old’ and knew ‘how to fasten on again to its body a head that has been cut off’. At all times and in most places man has believed and feared magic, both White Magic, which is said to be for a good cause and Black Magic, which is said to be evil. This has led to all sorts of secret societies and rites and rituals, from chanting to sacrifice. Unless you have met a witch or magician yourself you either believe or you don’t.

At this point, we could decide to read the Bible and get an overall picture of what was happening to the Israelites; but I will not be going into biblical details here, as I am more concerned with telling you about the ancient Egyptians. But one thing which I must mention is what happened after the Israelites got away. Whilst they were out in the desert, Moses went up a mountain to pray. When he got to the top of the mountain he saw Yahweh in the form of a burning bush and God spoke to his servant and told him to write down a set of ten laws, The Ten Commandments. Moses was to give them to the people so they would know how to live their lives and be able to get to heaven. Moses carved these out on stone tablets and took them back down the mountainside. Unfortunately when he got there he was horrified and very angry, because all his people had missed his leadership and reverted to worshipping idols, probably in a panic. He found them worshipping a golden calf and in his anger Moses smashed the tablets, so had to go back up and write them again. We can only hope he got them all right the second time and didn’t miss any.

Moses’ set of commandments have been passed down through the ages and millions and millions of people have based their lives on them, or tried to. All in all, they’re not a bad set of rules to help us lead good and consistent lives without harming society around us.

As I said before, Moses was an expert with the writing materials and probably got hold of a whole load of papyrus. He put down on paper all the old stories that were passed down through the ages, about his ancestors and maybe even yours. Right from the very beginning, of how his God, Yahweh or Jehovah as we mostly call Him today, created the world out of the waters (sounds a bit like some of the Egyptian stories of the creation doesn’t it?), made all the earth, sky, oceans, trees, grass, animals and birds and fishes, the lot! Then Yahweh made man and because man was lonely Yahweh made woman. He put man and woman, who he called Adam and Eve, in an absolutely beautiful garden called Eden, with all the creatures and plants. He told Adam he could eat anything he wanted, “the seed bearing herbs and the fruit bearing tree, except the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge”. Up until now Adam and Eve had everything going for them and could do whatever they wanted, just wandering round naked in this beautiful Garden of Eden, in a state of innocence, with nobody bothering them. Unfortunately, like all good things, it came to an end, because a rebel angel from Yahweh’s heaven, who was called Satan, came down to earth and started crawling round the garden trying to get up to no good. Well, to cut a long story short, said Moses in his book ‘Genesis’, Satan managed to persuade Eve to try some of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, because, as he said “It must be good if God doesn’t want you to eat it”. Eve then got Adam to eat some and all the troubles of the world started. Adam and Eve suddenly became ashamed of their nakedness. God became very angry and kicked them out of the garden, saying “Go forth and multiply”, which is exactly what they did and their descendants have been doing ever since.

Moses then went on to tell us that Adam and Eve had three boys, Cain, Abel and Seth, who became farmers and shepherds. Mankind’s trouble was far from over and Cain ended up getting very jealous of Abel and killed him. Once again there is a similarity with the old Egyptian mythology, in which Seth killed Osiris. Do you think it could be the same Seth and maybe that Osiris and Abel were the same person? Who knows? It could be that Cain said Seth did it and Seth said Cain did it. Anyway, in Moses’s story Cain went off and founded his own line and the descendants of Seth, who are listed in the Old and New Testaments, became the Israelites. A lot happened between the time of Seth and that of Moses but Genesis tells us not only who had (begot) whom as a son, but also how long they lived for. If you trace this back it looks like Adam and Eve were around about 4004 BC

Moses went on to write the story of the Israelites leaving Egypt in his book called Exodus and then wrote books of laws and a sort of census. These books, called Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, together with Genesis and Exodus, make up the first five books of the Old Testament and, whatever your religious beliefs are, they make good reading!

Most of the writing in Ancient Egypt was, as I have said, in hieroglyphs and used by specially educated scribes. Royalty was also taught and sometimes even princesses; we know that two of Akhenaten’s daughters possessed writing equipment. The scribe’s writing tools consisted of a palette holding two cakes of ink, one black and the other red, a pot of water, various size brushes and a holder for the brush. The brushes were made, often by the scribe himself, by cutting short lengths of rushes and sucking one end until it became soft. Young scribes were taught a simplified version of hieroglyphics referred to as hieratic script. The difference between these two writing styles is like the difference between our modern day capital letters and handwriting. There are many pictures of scribes on the walls of tombs and statues in Cairo Museum and elsewhere. The scribes were such a valued profession that they were always respected, paid well and could afford good tombs of their own. They often acted as advisors and became knowledgeable in sciences such as astronomy, astrology, medicine, architecture and official letter writing. Parents in Egypt would have been very keen on their son becoming a scribe.

Generally the boys of the family would take up the craft of their fathers; baker’s sons would become bakers, sandal-makers’ sons would be sandal-makers. The teaching was done by dad. But to enter the higher ranks of society a boy would have to learn to read and write. The boy would start his lessons in these arts at a young age and probably at considerable expense to his family It was usually the nobility rather than the wealthy, who were educated best. The schooling, often at the palace, lasted ten or twelve years and would consist of hard work memorising all the characters and lots of practice writing them. There were over seven hundred different characters of hieroglyphics and one would have to remember them all.

Here is a report of a conversation of a father to his son, taken from an ancient papyrus, exhorting him to work hard:

“It is greater than any other profession. There is nothing like it on earth.
I have seen a coppersmith at work at his furnace. His fingers were like the claws of
the crocodile and he stank more than a fish.
The jeweller...when he has completed the inlay work of amulets,
his strength vanishes and he is tired out.
The barber shaves until the end of evening. But he must be up early...He takes himself from street to street to seek someone to shave. He wears out his arms to fill his stomach.
The potter is covered with dirt. His clothes are stiff with mud, his headwear like rag.
The weaver inside the weaving house is terrible. He cannot breathe the air. If he passes just one day without weaving he is beaten with 50 lashes of the whip. He has to give food to the doorkeeper to let him come into daylight. The arrow maker is completely wretched.
The furnace maker, his fingers are burnt, his eyes are inflamed because of the
heaviness of the smoke. The washerman launders at the river bank near the crocodiles!”

Then the father tells his son “See, I have placed you on the path of God”.

So, as you can gather, there were lots of professions open to a young boy, but to be a scribe was the best.

The 700 odd hieroglyphs were little pictures of animals, birds, wavy lines and strange shapes, but each picture was meant to represent the actual object. They were carved on stele, statues, walls and doors of tombs, temples as well as on everyday possessions. Later they were written onto papyrus. It was believed that hieroglyphics were the ‘words of the gods’ and therefore possessed magical powers. Not only did they represent objects, but in the afterlife they would actually become the objects. In the tomb of a king’s son called Rahotep, who was also a high official in the sixth dynasty, there is a list of objects and food he would need with him in the afterlife and , of course, his name and position. If the dead person was a Pharaoh then his name would be put into the oval shaped outline called the Cartouche. This is mostly how we identify relics today, although it was often the case that a later Pharaoh would wipe out the cartouche of an earlier Pharaoh. For instance nearly every cartouche of Hatshepsut was wiped clean by her step-son Tuthmosis IV who hated her for preventing him from becoming Pharaoh when he was a boy. Fortunately, several avoided the destructive chisel and so we do know a little about Hatshepsut.

In Egypt, magic spells were written on the tomb walls inside pyramids and these we have called the ‘Pyramid Texts’. This practice was often reserved for royalty. Noblemen sometimes had pyramid text spells written on the inside of their coffin. These spells were meant to protect the dead person on the journey through the underworld, so that he would suffer neither hunger, nor thirst and be safe from dangers.

Later on, in the New Kingdom and about the XVIIIth dynasty, priests sold spells in ‘Books of the Dead’, although they were not really books, but scrolls which contained spells to be chanted at funeral ceremonies and placed in the tomb or coffin, often with a statuette of the god Ptah-Sokaris-Osiris.

The word ‘hieroglyph’ comes from the Greek name for these characters; ‘hiero’ is the Greek word for ‘holy’ and ‘glyph’ is the Greek word for ‘carving’. Hieroglyphics were used as the language of official documentation in the time of Alexander the Great and used in Egypt up to 300 AD. Then, however, the ability to understand hieroglyphs was lost for 1500 years.

In 1799 AD some troops of Napoleon found a basalt stone tablet bearing three types of script, at a place called Rosetta. This stone, which we now call the ‘Rosetta Stone’ contained hieroglyphics, a demotic script and Greek. It was lucky for us, because that was the key to deciphering the hieroglyphics, since people still used the same Greek letters. A man called Jean François Champollion decided to devote his time to the task of deciphering, which, even with knowledge of Greek, was not easy.

http://buffry.org.uk/fromdot.html

Arrest the cannabis medical growers??

How would you react if somebody came up to you in the street

shaking a collection tin and asking for a donation to help pay for the arrest and prosecution of sick and injured adults for growing a plant for their own beneficial use?

They would be armed with a list of ailments that it is claimed that cannabis helps - people to be targetted.

They would explain that there was no issue with them having harmed or put at risk other people.

There is no other (illegal to possess) drugs involved, and no supply to others.

They would be armed with the latest estimated costs of arrest and or courts, a breakdown of the total annual cost.

They would explain that since cannabis is against the law and police are becoming increasingly lenient or turning a blind eye to small growers as they have far more serious issues to deal with and are themselves underfunded, it is essential that people pay more money to finance more arrests and prosecutions above the billions in taxes.

They would explain that home grown cannabis used in those ways is a serious treat to the profits of the big phamaceutical companies that provide the present day prescription drugs that many growers are saying they have replaced with herbal cannabis.

Comment of UK Parliament back-bench debate on Cannabis petition signed by almost 250,000 to legalise possession, cultivation and supply

 UK Parliament back-bench debate on Cannabis petition signed by almost 250,000 to legalise possession, cultivation and supply.

The petition was not able health or medical cannabis, whatever that is, it was about changing the law to legalise possession, cultivation and suppy.  It was not about drugs, it was about cannabis and the law.

There wre just about 14 MP's present.   There were twice that number of non-MP's at least, witnessing.

My own MP, Chloe Smith for Norwicc North and the Norwich South MP were absent.   Brior to the debate, I emailed Ms Smith to ask her to attend and she replied that shie would listen.

So I do hope that she listens to the recordings or reads the Hansard transcript.

Paul Flynn started the debate by saying "we" do not want cannabis legalised because it is safe, we want it legalised because it is dangerous. "we" of course does not most campaigners that I know and legalisation based on that statement will lead for sure to excessive restrictions on supply.

From what the Minister said we can expect more availability of expensive pharmaceutical cannabis medications and it would not surpirise me if some sort of ban on seeds.

Not one of the MP's present admitted to having tried cannabis - fair enough - but is it not time they started to listen to those that have, the massive majority having suffered no ill effects and actually benefitted?

It was like listening to a group of people debating whether or not Paris is a good city and whether people should be allowed to go there, when none of those debating have actually been.

My impression of the Minister was that he had been drinking alcohol, I may be wrong, that is just my impression. Cheap alcohol subsidised by the taxpayers.

My prize for best speeches goes to Peter Lilley, Norman Lamb, Caroline Lucas and Paul Flynn.

Relevant pages:

Potent Quotes
News Reports
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide

uk PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON CANNABIS, OCTOBER 12 2015

I do hope that the MPs stick to the issue that the petition raised which is full legalisation of cannabis possession, cultivation and supply for all, not just some sort of medical restrictions or decriminalisation and not about whether or not cannabis is beneficial or harmful.

Of course it has been shown to be highly beneficial for many people, but that is a reason to make it available from doctors and pharmacies just as are opiates, not a reason to legalise for everyone.

Likewise we have to accept that cannabis may be harmful for some people, but that is not a reason to punish them or others, or to keep possession or cultivation at home as offences: if it were, then many more substances that harm many more people, such as sugar, caffeine drinks, aspirin, glues and solvents, would be illegal for everyone to possess.

The ISSUE MUST BE JUSTICE.

The issue of harm only becomes relevant for legalised commodities so that adequate and relevant controls on supply can be instated; whilst illegal for sales, no controls can be put on a substance left totally in the hands of criminal profiteers who don't even have to pay taxes.

Where is the JUSTICE in punishing victimless people for choice in their private lives, lifestyles and beliefs?

That question applies whether we talk about a beneficial or dangerous product.

Knives, for example, do untold harm, whether deliberate or accidental, even in the home, but are openly sold in shops and perfectly legal to have at home.

With knives it is what the person does with them that is the issue in law.

Neither is the government claim that cannabis is banned as a deterrent to others of any significance.

Neither is their claim that if legalised then more would use and more would suffer from cannabis (they ignore that many more would benefit)

Human Rights law both national and international, specifies criteria under which authority may interfere with private life or practice of belief: those criteria mean that law itself is not enough - which is the whole point of Human Rights to protect citizens against bad and unjust laws.

Human Rights law demands that the activity is a risk or does HARM to PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC ORDER, NATIONAL SECURITY OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS - the Government have failed to show that in the case of possession or cultivation of the cannabis plant in one's own home for own uses.

So my message to Paul Flynn and others in this debate is PLEASE focus on JUSTICE

Correspondence with Chloe Smith MP, Norwich North, Conservative, Sept 2015 re UK cannabis debate

Dear Ms Smith,

Whatever your feelings on punishing people for growing or possessing plants in their private lives and homes, I do hope you will consider at least attending and listening at the debate on cannabis laws happening on 12th October.

As you may know well over 200,000 people have signed a petition to legalise possession, cultivation and supply of cannabis - it is a matter that affects many people in Norwich as well as the many around the country that are ciminlaised and prosecuted despite doing no harm to others.

There are several facebook pages and web sites that list the medicinal benefits ranging from relief of stress to possible cancer treatments and I cannot believe that those people are all telling porkies and defintely do not believe that they should be punished.

The proof that cannabis can provide medical relief is also available from GW Pharmaceuticals who produce a whole-plant extract in alcohol into a cannister of spray called Sativex: sadly GW charge many times the price of the contents and processing costs and hence many NHS regions are refusing to supply it, driving those in need to grow their own cannabis or risk buying possibly contaminated materials from street dealers.

Alun Buffry


REPLY:

Dear Mr Buffry,

Thank you for your email.

I will certainly listen carefully to the arguments put by the petition. I am aware that official advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs continues to confirm that cannabis presents a significant risk to public health, so I remain unconvinced that decriminalisation is the right answer.

The medicinal product derived from cannabis, Sativex, has been approved by the body responsible for ensuring the medicines available in the United Kingdom are of the correct standard and are acceptably safe. The regulator believes Sativex is a safe and effective medicine for patients with multiple sclerosis. I can't comment on its pricing.

With best wishes,

Chloe Smith
Member of Parliament for Norwich North

 Dear Ms Smith,

Thank you for your reply.   Please understand that cannabis law is an issue about whether or not people should be punished by law for growing or possessing cannabis for own use and do no harm or cause no risk to others.

That question is irrespective of any harm the user may do to themselves and therefore the risk of using cannabis, which is very obviously lower than from consuming alcohol or tobacco, is only an issue when it comes to how such substances are controlled by law.

Leaving the commericial production and supply beyond control and in the hands of criminal profiteers can only increase any risk to the consumers through adulteraion or contamination - as was seen under the prohibition of alcohol in the US.  Check out what is happening in Colorado and other US states that have legalised supply.

The law, as it stands, does far more harm than good, not least from creating criminal records for people that have no victims

regards

Alun Buffry

Legalising "medical" cannabis = high prices, restricted supply, profit for the pharmaceutical giants

Legalising medical cannabis MEANS making a pharmaceutical grade product such as Bedrocan or SATIVEX AVAILABLE ON DOCTOR'S PRESCRIPTION - WHICH IN THE CASE OF SATIVEX IN THE UK, IT ALREADY IS - if you can get a doctor to prescribe it and an NHS region to supply it (as in Wales) or else you pay a massively high price.

In The Netherlands, same, you have to find a doctor willing to supply BEDROCAN and then buy from chemist shop costing more than in Coffeeshops - and many doctors there refuse to prescribe it.

Legalising medical cannabis would mean that one would have to have a "qualifying" medical condition that the doctor may think cannabis may help.

 

Legalsing medical cannabis would not mean that anyone could legaly grow their own, possess or buy cannabis - much like opiates at this time.

Time for Cannabis - The Prison Years - NEW BOOK - INTRODUCTION

Paperback and Kindle now available on Amazon

http://www.buffry.org.uk/timeforcannabis.html

This book is not meant to be humorous, although a certain amount of humour is unavoidable, partly because the nonsense and inconsistencies which I came up against during the last four years, and partly because sometimes it hurts so much that one has to either laugh or cry. I fully intend to criticise the prison and the court systems, but not, I hope, unnecessarily, and, I also hope, positively.

This is not meant as a horror story, a fiction, or an analytical work, although I will admit in advance to colouring and flavouring events, changing names, and interspersing actual events with thoughts of the occasion. This is to increase the readability of what might otherwise be a very 'flat' book, considering the flatness of the system.

I consider myself very fortunate, even in this experience, as I have previously travelled to many different countries, and witnessed the different languages and customs therein, which I feel has enabled me to adopt a more detached and somewhat enlightened attitude to the strangeness which I constantly experienced. Many inmates are either the well learned ‘old lags’ who have been in and out of the system for years, or else are younger and more naive.

I was also fortunate to have already received an education, thus being able to further it using the institution's facilities and classes, able to write and read easily, unlike many of my comrades, and thus help the time pass easily and productively. I was also fortunate enough, for want of a better phrase although it may sound as selfish as it is, to have first arrived at a prison along with some acquaintances, and to recognise a few faces already there who I could turn to for help with day to day life. Once again I sympathise greatly with the young, scared and lonely convict or detainee.

Although it is only natural that I feel some anger and resentment against the way I have sometimes been treated, in particular by the courts, this emotion has never overwhelmed me.

I see so many things wrong with the world that Mankind has created, not least the way in which selfish and greedy individuals have polluted our beautiful planet and continue to do so, perhaps to the point of no return and the devastation of possibly all life. I fail to see how the Governments on this world, who often seem to me to be evil, can allow the future to develop in this way, ruining the chances of happiness and health for their descendants. In the sixties I grew up under the constant threat of nuclear devastation imposed by individuals so many miles away, whose identities would never be known to most of us. But this being bad enough, at least there was a chance of survival.

As the sixties have become the nineties there are so many problems in this world, any one of which will destroy us as individuals or as a race, including Aids, acid rain, radiation poisoning, the 'Greenhouse Effect', the ozone depletion, the pollution of the air, sea and land, space junk, chemical additives in our food and water, and on and on and on.

Add to this unemployment and the violence shown on TV, in video’s and in the press, to the point of saturation and ‘normality’, and it is less surprising what is happening on our streets. It has been said that by the age of twelve the average American child has witnessed several thousand murders on the screen, and doubtless a similar figure is true for British children.

In the East they say life is cheap, and death is all around, and certainly it seems that in many countries where overpopulation has become such an everyday burden, there are constantly civil wars or violent freedom fighters whom the various governments call terrorists. But do the governments and industrial bosses realise the terror which they daily cause us in our lives, through their greed? Is it surprising there is so much violence and crime in the country?

Advertising is a strange practice to apply to people who are unable to afford the goods or services advertised, and although increasing sales amongst the select few, causes nothing but unsatisfied desire amongst everyone else. Consider this story. It concerns a village deep in the heart of the Egyptian desert near Libya. I forget the name, but that is unimportant. This small oasis settlement had been there for hundreds if not thousands of years, the locals content to grow what they could, and keep their livestock. In years past they may even have profited from accommodating the occasional traveller. They were certainly unlikely to attract any tourists, unless some big archaeological discovery was ever made. Being short of power, having no electricity and little means of producing it, they were unlikely to attract much big industry.

The locals remained poor people, but never starved. They were basically content, having what they needed and most of what they wanted. This is the point: they had most of what they wanted, or rather most of what they knew about that they could want. Of course they may have wanted a better doctor, a panacea, a magic carpet, but these were merely dreams.

One day however, one of the locals had to traverse the desert to Cairo, for personal reasons. Suddenly, instead of being surrounded by friends and sands, he found himself in a huge city, some fifteen million souls, tall buildings, thousands of cars, buses, trucks, bicycles, people in all style of dress, restaurants, businesses and even more foreigners than the population of his home village. What did he see? Advertising. Somehow he managed to get hold of a television, battery operated, and having been shown how to work it, he took it home with him.

Fortunately, or maybe not so, they could pick up signals in the village and they were able to watch films, news and documentaries about a country and a world they never new existed. The children and young men were, of course, able to watch too. And what did they see? Advertising Young mini-skirted girls drinking cola, cowboys with their special cigarettes, the blond bombshell in the tight jeans, the fast car and the gorgeous lady who went with it, watches, stereos, holidays, household appliances and magical gadgets, and so on.

So, what happened to their simple needs and desires? They multiplied out of all proportion. They wanted all these things too, but of course they had no money so they could only dream on in frustration. Until one day three or four young men themselves set off to Cairo, where the streets were paved with gold and one could make enough money to buy some of the well and ‘successfully’ advertised wares. Unfortunately when they got there they found not thousands but millions of people in the same position, unemployment ridiculously high, the city impersonal and apparently uncaring, and their chances of even getting enough food for tomorrow rapidly dwindling. But not everybody was poor. Some people had cars, wore expensive watches and clothes, and drank cola, and presumably had many more modern goods to make their lives apparently easier and happier. So what did our young and impressionable brothers do? They stole. They broke into a house and took what they could. Unfortunately these men were nothing of the professional burglar, knew nothing of finger prints and forensics, and were soon caught. The result? Four more inmates in the hell hole of Cairo prison. Once again the advertising agents had done their job well, convincing the people that they needed the junk they had to sell!

Of course the situation in Britain is not as extreme, but nevertheless it is surely obvious that if one successfully creates an intense desire for something, in the minds of often uneducated and impressionable people, in a time of unemployment when their cash is hard come by, at the same time blasting them with crime on the TV, something somewhere is going to give. A percentage of them, being unable to earn an honest buck, will hit the streets, either taking what they want through robbery and theft, or dealing in drugs or stolen property, prostitution, or any of the many other ways of getting a ‘few readies’.

This is why the prisons are so full. Add to that the people who drink and drive, maybe take drugs steal to get money for their next hit to lift them out of their boredom and fears, everybody taxed beyond what they can afford, and the prison population begins to overflow.

Having stated that as my beliefs as to why so much crime occurs, I now have to say that this was only a very minor cause of my conviction. I will not in this book, attempt to discuss my personal level of guilt or innocence, but I would like to stress the view I had of my offences at the time.

My charges were concerned with cannabis, a so-called drug. Having consumed it for a number of years, and met untold people in nearly every country I ever visited, smoked with young and old, people new to it and those who had smoked very heavily for very many years, for social, recreational and also ‘spiritual’ purposes,

I did not and do not understand why it remains illegal! In its pure uncut form it certainly seems to have done me no harm, or anyone I have met.

No matter how much one consumes there is no danger for a reasonably balanced person. It has been said that the fatal dose is two kilos, dropped on the head from a great height! There is no heavy withdrawal, no side effects.

The real problems are that it is often cut with possibly damaging impurities, ranging from sawdust to barbiturates, solvents to boot polish and evencow shit, by the less than scrupulous illegal suppliers; that it is normally mixed with the legal and deadly poisonous tobacco; and that it remains illegal and therefore in the control of the underworld. The so-called controlled drugs are controlled not by the Government, who should concern themselves with the lack of purity of consumables, but by crooks.

Added to this are the many acclaimed medical benefits of cannabis to sufferers of ailments such as multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, asthma and arthritis, its pain-killing properties, and relaxing properties, and the uses of the plant - hemp, for the non-polluting manufacture of paper, linen, rope - all the old maps, Bibles, sails, ropes etc were made from hemp - its use as a food supply (seeds crushed to make gruel are highly nutritious) for humans and animals, and its use as a clean, renewable (two crops a year) and highly efficacious fuel, cannabis is probably the most versatile God-given substance on earth! Of course, it makes some people apparently lazier, but not all, and many of these become more creative even if only privately.

There is a vast amount of music and art forms produced under the effect of cannabis.

About 5% of the population admit to having used it regularly, and in private a great many barristers and other professional men. In private a great many individuals agree that it should be legalised, but are, like the majority of people living under Nazi control who witnessed the inhumane treatment of the Jews, too afraid for their own careers, and freedom, to speak out. The anti-legalisation lobby seems to be left, nowadays, with the completely unfounded statement that it ‘leads to other drugs’. True, 95% of hard drug users confess, when asked in a weighted question, that their first illegal substance was cannabis. But only 5% at most, of cannabis users ever take hard drugs. It is rather like using the argument that 99% of convicted armed robbers admit to owning water pistols as children, to bring about the prohibition of possession and sale of water pistols! Meanwhile, whilst those in authority and positions of respect usually remain silent, and the various campaigns for legalisation are left in the hands of often unemployed and outcast folk who have little or no experience of organisation, thousands of users and dealers remain in prisons, and millions risk their health by consuming street ‘crap’.

Let’s face it, even with the risk of incarceration, people still use it and will continue to use it, and continue to line the pockets of crooks, so it is really time that some government opened its own eyes, legalised it, took control of quality, gained revenue through taxation, and saved the time of police, courts and prisons. So, having said that, why was it suddenly made illegal in the 1920's? Some political reasons? Strange how the banning of cannabis and hemp suddenly created a vacuum in the supply of ropes and fabrics, shortly before the industrial giants put nylon on the market, and the huge petrochemical companies marketed their synthetics and polluting alternatives. I sometimes wonder if there was a connection.

I am not trying to excuse breaking the law. The law is the law, right or wrong, and the country cannot survive without laws. Judge Pickles, himself an advocate for the legalisation of all drugs, was correct when he said that people should not be allowed to pick and choose which laws to keep and which laws to break, that sort of freedom would be disastrous. Neither should such offenders be given leniency. In prisons there are many who would legalise all sorts of unpleasant things which they have been incarcerated for. Yet it is true, in the cases of the suffragettes and also the homosexuals, who sought to change the law by breaking it, that it can eventually lead to publicity and success.

I would, however, stress that very many people with similar experiences to me, never had any intention of hurting anyone, and mostly have never broken any other laws. Their preference for cannabis over alcohol and sedatives, has, nonetheless, resulted in their doors being kicked in, humiliating strip and personal searches, hours of solitude in filthy police cells and extended interviews often interspersed with secret threats and insults, confiscation of assets, collapse of businesses or careers, long periods in prison equivalent to sentences for armed robbery and often greater than for rape offences, and general alienation from their families, friends and society in general.

Why? All because they wanted to get high! Cannabis is used in prisons probably more than on the outside. The staff, I have been told more than once by members of that elite group, tend to turn a blind eye - it keeps the inmates quiet.

So, back to this book, like I say it is not the place to discuss guilt or innocence. Although I can hardly avoid ‘having a dig at the system’ and those who perpetuate it, that is neither my purpose.

Rather I want to present the prisons through my eyes, the eyes of an educated and travelled, non-criminally minded, and, as those who know me will agree, harmless forty year old male from Wales. I felt that by helping to organise contacts and introductions between suppliers and customers, I was helping people by enabling them to get a clean supply, by keeping them away from alcohol, hard drugs, and the dreadful tranquillisers and sedatives, benefited people.

Educated as a scientist at university, I was taught to examine the facts for myself, and not to blindly accept everything I was told.

This is all I ask of you the reader, to consider the evidence with an open mind; those who accept orders and laws without question are the true fascists.

The book is divided into four sections: the first will cover the nightmare of remand in custody.

The three prisons which I entered were category B, a maximum security, and a low security C category. I was on wings separated from the so-called vulnerable prisoners, as we call them, ‘nonces’, guilty of horrendous crimes which should not ever be even imagined.

Amongst the prisoners with whom I lived the hatred of the nonces was universal.

As for the others it seems that the longer the sentences the more respect the inmates had for each other. A man two or more years into a ten or twenty year sentence has an entirely different attitude towards his surroundings than a short-timers who is only ‘passing through’.

The main problems for the long-timers are the poor living conditions, being isolation from family and friends, and institutionalisation.

Frustration and helplessness, anger at the treatment of self and others, an authoritative hypocrisy, are what causes violence amongst these men.

This book is an attempt to portray what I saw and felt at the time.

http://www.buffry.org.uk/timeforcannabis.html