My view on the present UK cannabis campaign and activities

This is my view on the present UK cannabis campaign and activities

Within the UK:

It seems that WTU is struggling to raise the funds to bring the legal action against the government that Phil Monk intended and is otherwise lacking direction - for that legal action hundreds of thousands of pounds will be needed and WTU has about ten grand, we are told. Also waiting to see the outcome of Outlaw's Judicial Review as he has the funds and a legal team. WTU has had problems with FB taking down their group - twice, and accusations of misappropriation of funds due to lack of transparency in accounting and then the volunteer accountant resigned due to the very same accusations they were meant to dispel. WTU has amassed evidence to support their case which is now available through Amazon in the book The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice, Phil Monk is not in the best of health either. Support had dropped off, there is a forum but it so far is not being used much.

SOF have been producing reports and considering a Judicial Review on the way in which driving impairment charges are based upon blood samples rather than driving ability - again funds are needed.

Personally I would like to see WTU and SOF combine as WTU is also so dependent on Phil's health and availability which is not so good, and rather than splitting the energy maybe that would make better focus.

As you say, not a lot of activity from UKCSC which was in any case largely based on picnics in parks which were put on hold due to Covid restrictions, and a long way from the transparent members-only collective growing of the original Spanish and Belgian Cannabis Social Clubs.

NORML UK does not seem to be active either.

The cannabis political party in the UK idea does not seem very popular since the days of LCA, despite CLEAR and CISTA. Personally I believe a political party did give campaigners a platform and attract press.

Also there seems to be very little effort put into "Letters to the Editor" which in my opinion can be one of the most cost effective means of campaigning and getting the message out there. But it takes consistent effort. And few groups seem capable of issuing regular Press Releases.

There is also the GYO campaign and the Human Rights campaign.

Again IMO the human Rights campaign which basically accuses the Government of Crime and regards the people in court as mostly victims of misuse of power and wrong application of law and covers private and religious / belief activities that pose no threat to the public or public health, would cover GYO for own use and social sharing.

In the UK there were several attempt to get court cases dropped, noticeably Lezley and Mark Gibson - their case was dropped on the understanding that they stopped growing and accessed their medicine through private prescription. Tony Bevington had similar conditions put on him to avoid prosecution.

In the UK the cancard incentive - a card that people that use cannabis for medicinal reasons and costs £30 and an annual fee can be presented to police and seems, as they report, to have had some success in avoiding prosecution and confiscation for cannabis being carried on the street in small amounts - they say they are trying to expand it to give some form of immunity to people growing their own for their own medicinal reasons. Cancard also has some opposition from other groups and campaigners that feel it is limited and avoids the real issues, also somebody seems to be makinga lot of money.

Meanwhile we are hearing a lot about CBD and even TV and magazines are full of advertising for it.

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…

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

Sad Justice in Singapore for Cannabis User That Treated His Epilepsy

Seems a sad day for Justice in Singapore when a man in possession of of what seems a tiny amount of cannabis for his own use and to fight his epilepsy - having harmed nobody and caused no threat, is taken to court and sent to prison at huge expense to the taxpayer - just how much was this cannabis worth and where are the victims?

What will happen if he suffers an episode whilst in prison - will he be given pharmaceutical drugs that often have bad side-effects and will cost the taxpayers even more?

Wake up Singapore - No Victim, how can there be a crime? - change your UNJUST laws.

Meanwhile, in the UK, GW Pharmaceuticals are hoping to make massive profits out of selling whole-cannabis extracts to treat Epilepsy.
UK: GW Pharma’s cannabis based epileptic drug on its way

Samaylive. October 23 2012

An Indian national , XXXXX   working as auditor in Singapore has been jailed for six months for smoking banned drug cannabis.
   

XXXXX, 25, was arrested in August last year along with a group of others suspected drug users from an apartment.
   

Defence lawyer .... told the court that XXXXX suffered from epilepsy and had taken the cannabis believing it would ease his condition. But Deputy Public Prosecutor Seraphina Fong pointed out that XXXXX had been smoking cannabis regularly since February last year.

Being an educated man, he should have known about Singapore's harsh anti-drug penalties, Fong said. Announcing the verdict yesterday, District Judge John Ng accepted medical opinions that XXXXX was not addicted to cannabis, which could have got him a longer sentencing period.

XXXXX, who graduated from the Indiana University and worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, took to the drug when studying in the United States.

He gave up using the drug for about a year but relapsed in February last year.XXXXX pleaded guilty to consuming the controlled narcotic and possessing a grinder with 0.21g of cannabis mixture.

Both possessing and consuming of drugs carry maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of SGD 20,000 under Singapore's harsh anti-drug laws.