No reason to punish people for using things to their benefit unless they harm others.

Almost everything is life can pose a risk to some people but that is no reason to punish other people for using things to their benefit unless they harm others. Punishing a person simply for growing or possession of a plant for their own use is a total misuse of law, injustice and breach of Human Rights that allow people a Private Life.

To punish a person such as Mr French, who claims to be using cannabis to alleviate dreadful pain an symptoms of MS would be an outrage, as it is that so many other victimless cannabis users have been and are being fined and even sent to prison.

There is now irrefutable medical evidence that cannabis has medicinal vale for a large number of ailments and evidence that risk is very small, far smaller than many pills prescribed by doctors - pills that often have side-effects that require other pills to counteract.

The side-effect of consuming cannabis is at best a feeling of relaxation and at worse the munchies.

In fact, The UK and other Governments, even though they deny that cannabis has any medicinal uses, now allow the production and sale of the whole-plant extract in the form of alcohol solution in a spray, called Sativex.

I have yet to see any explanation of how a medicine can be produced by simply dissolving and filtering a plant with no medicinal use, in alcohol!

And in Netherlands and other countries, cannabis bud is available on a doctors' prescription and bought at pharmacies.

Unfortunately the law gives monopoly to the pharmaceutical companies and unfortunately there products are far more expensive than the cost of growing the cannabis at home or even buying in Dutch Coffeeshops.

But what it boils down to for me - irrespective of benefit or risk of harm through use - why should the law punish people that engage in activities that do no harm or pose no risk to others or their rights?


Call for cannabis legalisation at Portsmouth event
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/health/local-health/call-for-cannabis-legalisation-at-portsmouth-event-1-6529353 
The News Portsmouth, 19 January 2015

WE must fight to legalise cannabis for the sake of improving our lives.

That was the message yesterday from people with a range of health problems who revealed that taking the drug means they are not left in constant pain.

Patients were given the opportunity to share their experiences during an open discussion on the topic of cannabis legalisation at Fratton Community Centre, in Portsmouth.

Clark French, 29, of Brighton, who was diagnosed with MS five years ago, said taking cannabis has eased the chronic pain that comes with the disease.
He told the audience: ‘MS is an awful disease, it’s horrible, I can’t even bring about the words to explain it.

‘I am in pain all the time.
‘When I use cannabis however, I am in less pain.
‘It doesn’t take the pain away completely, but cannabis gives me a life again and gives me the ability to stand up and share my story.’
Mr French, of United Patients Alliance, which set up the event, added: ‘It’s not right that it is not legal – we need to get together and fight.
‘It’s not cannabis we are fighting for, but our lives.’
Angela Came, 44, of Petersfield, said the drug helps her cope with depression, psychosis and post-traumatic stress disorder.
‘I didn’t start taking it until after I was diagnosed and I didn’t start taking it regularly until two years ago,’ she said.
Mel Clarke, 53, of Southsea, who has MS, said smoking cannabis has changed her life whereas painkillers ended up doing more harm.
Mrs Clarke said she first smoked cannabis on a trip to Amsterdam.
Alex Fraser, 24, who was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease at 19, said while critics may feel he should just take legal painkillers, they make his condition worse.
‘There are a lot of things I can’t eat, I can’t drink, there’s a whole list. And I know that what I do eat, it’s still going to be hard,’ he said.
‘If I smoke a joint or smoke a joint after a meal, I feel so much better.’

All beneficial use is therapeutic - the difference is in urgency of need - the Cannabis Health Service

think that the decision whether or not to prosecute or punish somebody in possession of or for production of cannabis / drugs should be based upon whether or not the person has done harm or put at risk others or their property or Rights or they have threatened public health - as in fact stipulated in Human Rights law - and not on whether or not the person is injured or ill.

Campaigning for better medical access for those in urgent need is a different matter, of health and not law, and what is needed is for the Government to RESCHEDULE cannabis bud (plant materials) and not only Sativex as they have done.

Then cannabis will be available on prescription in the form of BEDROCAN, sterilised and standardised, through doctors and pharmacies as in The Netherlands, Italy and other countries and as Sativex but beware - that does not mean that doctors will be willing to prescribe it or that it will be free - in Netherlands one has to pay and a little more expensive than coffeeshops.

That would also not mean that it would become legal to grow cannabis even only for own use.

To enable that the campaign must DEMAND that the law respect Human Rights, specifically to a Private Life, to freedom to choose and practice ones belief and to equity of property between cannabis and, for example, alcohol.

Such a demand cannot be a demand only for one type of person for example those that are ill or injured, it must be applied the same for everyone (that is the acknowledgement of Human Rights not access to prescribed cannabis)

Also as we know cannabis has tremendous value as PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE - and as Clark French and previously Granny Pat Tabram, Chris Baldwin, The Late Biz Ivol, and many others that suffer and have found their suffering eased through consumption of cannabis, have said ALL USE IS MEDICINAL.

I agree with them - at best the line between "medicinal benefit" and "getting high" is vague, to my mind it is false. There is only use - therapeutic use. All else is degree of urgency of need.

So I think this campaign will need to focus on:
1) better access - that is through doctors, pharmacies and clinics
2) stopping prosecutions for possession and cultivation for own use

Then look at supply to adults other than through doctors etc, e.g. CSC's, Coffeeshops, Cannabis Clubs - to make that legal too.

Also Colin Davies has set up an enterprise to raise funds to buy / produce cannabis oil for those that cannot grow their own, many not expecting to live long enough to grow and crop their own.

It is called the CANNABIS HEALTH SERVICE and you can read about his cause and make a donation here
http://www.cannabishealthservice.org/

Cannabis Protests - should they smoke in public?

This morning I listened to an excellent interview with Clark French of NORML UK and the Berkshire Cannabis Community, on BBC Radio Berkshire. 

I think Clark did an excellent interview and made some powerful points.(listen here - about 2 hours and 5 mins from the start - move the slder pop up below the video)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01cwt0mClark also stepped up to the line by putting himself at risk, to some extent, by admitting his use of cannabis to ease his suffering from MS.

But Clark went further than that by announcing a public protest  see https://www.facebook.com/events/593588457357865/?fref=ts  on Sept 7th in Reading, UK.

Personally I congradulate Clark and hope that many people will turn up to support the gathering - of course some cannot or will not, especially if police are going to be there.  On rthe other hand others want apolice and press presence.

Regarding publicity for the gatherings, well it depends on the purpose of the gathering - whether to simply meet up and have a smoke (which may best be done in a more private venue) OR to openly defy and challenge the law or BOTH

.In the past most Smokey Bear Picnics, protests, marches etc included public toking, often in the presence of the, thousands marching through London, cannabis festivals, gatherings in Trafalgar Square, and many smaller gatherings in the open in places like Southsea, Hull, Norwich, Chemslford ... I remember in Southsea one year there would be police arrested a few smokers; the next there would be no arrests, then there would be arrests the year after.  The authorities just did not know what to do.

 In Norwich in a central park we sat on the grass and toked, and police just walked pst, about 70 t0 100 of us.  Even after it was on the front page of the local press in advance, police did nothing.  We caused no problems.

Some people may think it depends on numbers prseent at the event - the more there are the less police presence.

 But history does not suggest that - and think about how many police would turn up if there were an equivalent number of alcohol drinkers.

Then there were turn-yourself-in days (I would never do that because I did not feel I had anything to turn-myself in for). 

In London Free Rob Cannabis and Howard Marks, just the two of them, tried to turn themselves in.  One year they were locked out of the police station.  In Norwich Lewi Rodrigues tried to turn himself in but they would not take him to court.

When THC4MS was busted, over 75 people in the old LCA signed statements saying that if THC4MS were guilty of conspiracy to supply, then so were we, sent it to the Carlisle police and press.  Nothing happened.  THC4MS three were given suspended sntences for supplying 36,000 bars of cannabis chocolate through the post without profit.

When Pinky started his protests, he was worried out people getting busted, so he wanted toking to be discreet - trouble was that so few  protestsersturned up.I do understand that those that grow or have jobs or family circumatsnaces that they want to protect, refrain from such open and public chllenges to the law, but I also greatly ADMIRE those that are prepared to try to defeat prohibition in this way - arrests for small amounts, court cases, all cost money - a waste of taxpayers money, and even without any change in law we can use that to push for greater tolerance - where there is no threat or not harm there should be no such arrests.

Each to his or her own - so long as we each put in some effort in some way, I think the battle can be on many fronts.

http://www.ccguide.org/lca/activities.php

http://www.ccguide.org/events.php

PLEASE SUPPORT CLARK and leave comment and RATE those good and bad already there

PLEASE SUPPORT CLARK and leave comment and RATE those good and bad already there

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/reading/articles/2012/09/30/63118-a-sword-in-the-side-of-prohibition/

my comment:


Well done Clark French for standing up and telling the honest truth - and to those that try to contradict that truth by saying cannabis causes this or that, you miss the point.
Most medicines have side-effects, and often the pills from the doctor need more pills to counteract the side-effects - those side effects that are possible are often listed on the sheet that comes with the pills, in small print - they range from paranoia, through drowsiness to depression, even suicide tendencies, impotence, rashes, sleep and digestion problems, constipation --- well, look for yourself.
Secondly, not ever medicine works for every person that uses it.
Clark was brave enough to try a PLANT product that helps him - that does not mean that he suffers from any side-effects, apart from maybe a "high".
Other people have said they have had bad effects from cannabis - that does not mean that they or those that benefit should be punished - and THAT is what the law is about
We have a choice here: first we must accept that cannabis is one of the most widely used substances / drugs,. possibly excluding beer, and caffeine drinks - that both have serious side-effects and are a risk to health.
People are not allowed to grow their own even in their own homes for their own use.
Therefore the only access is illegal dealers where there is no consumer protection, no quality control, no age restrictions, no credible advice, no tax on profits and possible exposure to other drugs and crime.
On the other hand, the Government could do its duty and stop spending tax-payers money chasing growers, users and dealers, and set up a system of legal distribution for adults - outlets that are controlled and the profits taxed.
Cannabis use will continue in this country because so many people find so much benefit for so many terrible ailments, conditions and pains.
We can either remove the control from criminals and protect the consumers that do no harm - or else boost the illicit market and continue to spend billions annually in the so-called "war on drugs" - which is in fact a war on people