CAMPAIGNING FOR JUSTICE

 The problem is and always has been that the law is run by people paid to perpetuate the system, good or bad, there are many businesses from the legal profession through the pharmaceutical industry and synthetics and fuel producers to illegal suppliers that have and wish to continue to make huge profits. Just look at how long it took Phil to find just ONE solicitor that would even take on the case, just look at how solicitors want their clients to plead guilty, how so few barristers would risk arguing with a judge, how judges misdirect the jury, how they want to side-step any challenge to the law itself and want to avoid consideration of Human Rights, how Tories and Labour parties consistently ignore evidence an spout the same nonsense, how the Church refuses to help us .... for sure under a tyrannical government backed by profiteers and ruling population most of whom are afraid the "rock the boat", OUR OPPONENT IS MASSIVE, well financed and backed by armed forces.

But none of that is new, it's been like that for decades -and even when people stood us as candidates in elections, most consumers did not vote for them; every campaign has been underfunded - there has been more raise din FINES than for all the campaign groups put together, ... then there's Cancard, the success of which (at least in marketting the cards) is due to fear of arrest and weak promises of get-out-of-jail-free.

So, for me, it is a constant ISSUE - do I bother carrying on campaigning when quite clearly most consumers don't give a damn unless it's to ease their own suffering, or avoid their own arrest?

That's why so many campaigners have dropped out - basically due to lack of support from what some (wrongly in my opinion) call the cannacommunity or cannafamily (surely not family of millions that won't help).

Nobody said our route was going to be easy - I said years ago at a conference that it was like a few people pushing a truck up a hill whilst others sat on the wall clapping instead of helping, each with their own reason for not actually helping, and then the people pushing stopped, the truck rolled back down the hill and people came and built obstacle on the road so if people started pushing again it would be even harder.

Then of course there are the go's running the campaign groups that all say "we want the same" but won't actually help or prefer to argue over tactics!

One would think with 4 millions consumers raising even half a million should be possible. With 250,000 people having signed a petition that JUST £2 each; with BILLIONS spent on cannabis every year ....

ONE OF THAT IS ENCOURAGING IS IT?

So we must each make our decision on what we do, do we help or not, or just leave it up to others?

For me it's a burn - I see INJUSTICE and I want to stop it and that is WHAT DRIVES ME - my inspiration comes from within me, nobody else although it does help and inspires me to see others TRYING.

Cannabis Justice and Rights Campaigning

What I would like to see:

OUR Human Rights to grow cannabis and possess cannabis in our Private Lives acknowledged: that is, legal home grown.

OUR Human Rights to choose and practice our personal belief or religion alone or with others to be acknowledged

To me that means:

an end to the prosecution / punishment of people growing or in possession of cannabis for their own use or social sharing

AND

Licensed commercial outlets for quality controlled cannabis for adults with tax on profits and consumer protection regulations and consumption allowed on the premises with the owners permission, similar to Dutch Coffeeshops - cannabis "off-licenses" also ; all with consumer protection and tax on profits

AND

Licensed non-profit private member club premises where cannabis consumers can gather in safety to buy and consume cannabis and socialise. These could be limited to members only and no advertising, with age restrictions (similar to Spanish Private Clubs)

AND

Legal and transparent profit-free collective growing clubs

AND

Natural cannabis and cannabis products to be available free through the doctor's prescription ND NHS

SOME PEOPLE may say that I am a dreamer, sure, that we will never get all that or not for decades at least, that it is asking too much at once ...

But am a CAMPAIGNER who prefers to campaign for what he feels is Right and Just, not based on public opinion or political correctness or even viability..

At 66, who knows how long I have left to see my dream come true.

I consider myself very fortunate not to be bound by the policies or opinions of others.

Cannabis and the law - the essential issue

The authorities and their backers want the only available cannabis to be on prescription and through the pharmacy such as the likes of Sativex and Bedocan - same as they want to get rid of herbal and homoeopathic medicines - they want us as their slaves whilst they continue to pollute and destroy and then want us to pay through the nose one way or another for the medicines.

"They" do not want us to even choose our own seeds or foods.

Sadly, in my opinion, far too many campaigners, activists and patients are falling into the trap of trying to differentiate between users and talk about "medical cannabis" which can only mean Sativex and Bedrocan (as opposed to "non-medical" cannabis / users) whilst saying all cannabis is medicine (different to calling it medical cannabis).

I fear that their campaign, if successful, would lead to more prescriptions - increased availability of the "medicines" - and do nothing about the RIGHTS of all people to choose their own lifestyle and beliefs, and right to a private life.

Such differentiation of types of cannabis / users is not only heading in the wrong direction, bordering on accepting a level of prohibition, limiting choices but reflects a misunderstanding of the law (it is about people not substances or reasons of use - it is about what the law sees as "Misuse"), it would also be contrary to human rights to treat people differently in law because of state of health.

The media talk about "skunk" as if "Satan" - again distracting from the real legal issue - people.

EVEN IF / JUST BECAUSE Jon Snow or a relatively small minority of users may be over-sensitive or react badly to a substance is NO REASON to ban it - no reason to punish users unless they have done harm.

For me the issue of cannabis and the law always has and still is mostly about NO VICTIM NO CRIME - all else is a distraction.

Stepping towards legalisation

The first step, for me, would be to convince the public, press and politicians and judges, of the INJUSTICE of punishing people for cultivation or possession for own use in their own homes if they had not put at risk or harmed others, their Rights or their property.

That is akin to something they may understand if it was mint instead of cannabis.

But that it is for own use, the invasion of private life and practice of personal beliefs is contrary to Human Rights law (whatever the activity is) UNLESS it is illegal AND (the important word) puts at risks or harms public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others.

In other words, unless those criteria are met, the bust itself is illegal.

To get that point across we need to show that whether the plant is mint or cannabis, the criteria is the same - the risk to others is the same = none.

The JUST APPLICATION of the law is essential.

So it's not even a case of whether it is legal to grow or illegal to grow - at home, in private and for own use - that is part of PRIVATE LIFE and chosen beliefs, lifestyles.

Beyond that we move to consumption in public, sharing and supply.

l argue that for those unable to grow their own, there will be  a market, either legal or illegal.

It seems obvious to me that a contained system of outlets that are licensed to protect consumer rights and health and safety with tax on profits is preferable than a free-for-all on the street where there are no age restrictions, no guarantee of quality or purity, no accurate indication of strength and possible associated with crime and other drugs.

Economically the benefit is a massive drop in cost of policing and courts, freeing up billions annually plus the VAT and tax on commercial profits

Leave the Government to start adding its own tax and no need to push for it.

In the ideal, cannabis should be available free of charge to all in need through their doctor's prescriptions - it's just a plant and its use would save the NHS many billions.

Cannabis users deserve protection not punishment, unless they harm others

How can it be fair to threaten punishment of victimless cannabis users because some people that have used it have said they have had problems or have committed other crimes?

If that logic is applied generally, considering the problems cause by some people that drink alcohol, then it also should be illegal and all drinkers would face prosecutions. Drivers too!

Cannabis users, like anyone else, should be punished if they harm others or break other laws - otherwise they deserve the same level of protection in law as people that drink - protection from drug dealers, protection from bad quality, credible point-of-sale advice, and profits on commercial cultivation and sale should be taxed.

If the idea is to reduce cannabis use, then clearly with many millions in the UK admitting to use, many times more than in 1971 the the Misuse of Drugs Act was introduced, the law has totally failed - all it has done is criminalised so many that had actually done no harm.

And whilst the numbers of users has increased so many times over the last 40 years, the incidence of mental illness has not - so there is little connection there.

And in any case those that suffer need doctors, not police, courts and lawyers.

Recorder says Vietnamese man was slave and sends him to prison to for 8 months

A Recorder at Bolton Crown Court described the cultivation of cannabis by an illegal Vietnamese immigrant as "slavery" but still sent him to prison - where is the Justice in that?

Recorder Stephen Bedford heard that Tien Bui, aged 19, was smuggled into the country by people traffickers, and then got involved in growing the drugs to pay back debts that he owed.   Tien Bui was found sleeping on a mattress in a house with 105 cannabis seedlings, and 86 small plants.  He had
pleaded guilty to producing cannabis at an earlier hearing.

Mr Bedford then told him: ""I understand the difficulty you found yourself in. What you were doing was a form of what can only be described as slavery that I rule is at the bottom end culpability."I put it to you that Mr Bedford did not understand the difficult at all, and did not understand that the only victim in this case was the man he sent to prison.

 http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/9975645.Jail_for_Vietnamese_cannabis_grower/

UK: Jail for Vietnamese cannabis grower


thisislancahsire

Wednesday 10 Oct 2012
A VIETNAMESE man who was caught growing £60,000 of cannabis at a house in Westhoughton has been jailed.

Tien Bui, aged 19, was smuggled into the country by people traffickers, and then got involved in growing the drugs to pay back debts that he owed.
Bolton Crown Court yesterday heard the house was raided by police on September 13 and Bui was inside transferring plants from small pots into bigger pots.
There were 105 cannabis seedlings, and 86 small plants.
The court heard the house appeared to be lived in, as a single mattress and food was also found.
Antony Longworth, defending, told the court he came here illegally when he was aged 17.
He said: "As a teenager illegally in the country he was vulnerable to exploitation. At first he found employment with a Vietnamese family as a housekeeper.
"He owed $20,000 and in two years he paid off $5,000. He was targeted and recruited by a criminal gang. He did not realise how criminal the activity was that he was involved in."
Bui, of Manchester Road, pleaded guilty to producing cannabis at an earlier hearing.
Recorder Stephen Bedford jailed him for eight months.
He said: "I understand the difficulty you found yourself in. What you were doing was a form of what can only be described as slavery that I rule is at the bottom end culpability."
The court heard at the end of his sentence he could be deported.

Man bought cannabis to ease crippling arthritis pain" (Sept 30) - leave him alone!

Sirs, I refer to your report "Man bought cannabis to ease crippling arthritis pain" (Sept 30).
In defence the lawyer is reported to have said "He doesn't want to keep attracting convictions but he has to weigh up the balance between being in agony and unable to move and taking cannabis."
So the magistrate sentence shim to a conditional discharge - gives him the very same choice again.
Well I ask you, the reader, if given the same choice, what would you choose - pain or a plant that eases it far more effectively than dangerous pills with unpleasant side-effects.
There is a third choice - allow him or his carer to grow a limited number of plants at home for own use.
If he is not hurting anyone, it ought not be a matter for the police and the taxpayers ought not to be footed the bill for taking people to court when they have done no harm.
Alun Buffry
address
Norwich


You can write to: stephen.stray@jpress.co.uk
subject "Letter to the Editor" - include your name and address and refer to title of article and date (30 Sept)

http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/crime/man-bought-cannabis-to-ease-crippling-arthritis-pain-1-4314777

No sense punishing for victimless crimes

It makes no sense to me for the law to punish somebody just for breaking the law - that is tyranny - that is why Human Rights were written - unless there is threat or harm to others or their Rights, public health, public order or national security, the authorities HAVE NO RIGHT to interfere with PRIVATE LIFE or RIGHT TO HOLD AND PRACTICE ONE'S CHOSEN BELIEF OR RELIGION

Man who grew cannabis as pain-relief sentence reduced but still unjustly locked up

Although I welcome the reduction in sentence, truth is that Matthews seems to have harmed nobody and simply tried to ease his pains with a plant he found effective and that he could grow in the privacy of his own home - NOBODY ELSE WAS INVOLVED.

I find it remarkable that courts, the legal profession and journalists alike do not seem to realise the difference between some form of medical dependency and addiction.

All people that take medication to treat the symptoms of illness or accident are dependent upon the medication until they either recover or it is replaced by something more effective.

The result of stopping the medication is usually a return of or worsening of the symptoms or pain.

Addiction, however, is completely different, depending upon the addictiveness of the substance and the person.

Stopping use of an additive drug is usually accompanied by withdrawal symptoms - new problems that were not there before the drug was taken.

I very much doubt that Matthews was a cannabis addict as cannabis itself is not an addictive drug.

One thing is quite obvious though - sending him to prison will not (has not) help his whether or not be was dependent or addicted!

Sending a person to prison for doing something to ease suffering of self - such being that there was somebody else involved - is simply unjust.

Had Matthews been suffering from MS, had he been living in certain parts of the country (some NH areas refuse to prescribe) - he may have been prescribed cannabis in the form of an expensive extract called Sativex, also containing alcohol that brings its own problems for some people.

And guess what!

Sativex is simply cannabis in a liquid spray form, contains all the chemicals found in the plant - but just about 20 times more expensive

Jail term cut for back pain man who grew own cannabis
By Stuart Richards, April 24, 2012, Get Surrey

A MAN who grew cannabis in his loft and used the drug as a painkiller for chronic back problems has been granted a reduction in his prison sentence.
Pro-cannabis campaigner Winston Matthews, 55, of Upfield Close, Horley, took his case to the Court of Appeal last Thursday (April 19) and had his jail term cut from 16 to 12 months.
The appeal court heard that Matthews - who previously admitted breaching a suspended sentence, three counts of cultivating cannabis and two of possessing the drug - was due to receive a deferred sentence at Guildford Crown Court in February, so he could get help for his addiction, but was instead sent to prison after saying he would "struggle" not to take cannabis.
But senior judges have now reduced the sentence, ruling that the original term was "too long".
Judge Paul Batty QC, sitting with Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Spencer, said Matthews was first given a suspended sentence in August 2010 after 56 cannabis plants were found in his home.
His flat was searched by police later that month, and again in December that year, and a further 42 plants were discovered during those two raids.
Matthews was told he would receive a deferred sentence, in order to give him a chance to find alternative pain relief and stop using cannabis.
But, speaking directly to Judge Christopher Critchlow at Guildford Crown Court on February 3 this year, Matthews said he could not guarantee that he would stop using cannabis to alleviate his pain.
He was jailed three days later by Judge Suzan Matthews, who said she had no other option but to send him to prison due to his "persistent" offending.
Challenging the 16-month jail term last week, Matthews' lawyers argued Judge Matthews did not take enough account of his physical and mental problems which had led to him using cannabis for pain relief.
Barrister Ben Cooper said his client grew his own drugs in order to "bypass" criminals and used cannabis because he had chronic back pain, following an accident as a teenager, and a depressive illness.
Mr Cooper said Matthews was not eligible for a cannabis-based prescription drug as it is currently only given to Multiple Sclerosis sufferers, but that he had taken steps towards finding a lawful alternative form of pain relief.
Judge Batty said Matthews did deserve to go to prison, but that the sentence should have been shorter as it was his first jail term.
He added: "Even where cultivation is for the defendant's own use then custody is almost inevitable. The courts have tried and tried again so far as this appellant is concerned to avoid a custodial sentence.
"No matter what the personal mitigation may be, the time has to come at some point when custody cannot be avoided and that time has come for this appellant.
"That said, this is the appellant's first sentence of imprisonment and we have sympathy for his position.
"We think it is possible to slightly mitigate the length of the sentence without in any way criticising the perfectly proper approach the judge took in this case."

Decorator is victim of burglary... then done for growing cannabis - COMMENT

What happened to Justice in Britain

First a burglar invades the guy's house with intention of stealing his property>

Then the police enter the house and steal the guy's property.

Then he ends up being punished even though it was not the decorator that did any harm?

What this means is that anyone exercising their RIGHT to a PRIVATE life that becomes a victim of a crime and wants to report it risks becoming the victim of a bad and unjustifiable law.

This must change.

Kent On-Line, January 17 2012
Decorator is victim of burglary... then done for growing cannabis
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/january/17/burglary_victim_caught_out.aspx

by Julia Roberts

Decorator Daniel Wright came a cropper when his Greenhithe flat was broken into - burglars stole his cannabis plants and he was then arrested for growing the drug.
Police found the small-scale cannabis factory in a bedroom at Wright’s flat in  Courtyard Mews, Waterstone Park, after they had been called to investigate a suspected burglary on August 16.
Maidstone Crown Court heard officers traced Wright after stopping the getaway vehicle and finding his driving licence and other personal documents inside. They also found a bin bag containing six cannabis plants.
The officers went to his flat to find a window ajar at an awkward angle and a sidegate forced open.
Jo Cope, prosecuting, said they were concerned when there was no reply and forced their way in, only to discover more cannabis plants.
“In the bedroom they found two grow tents,” explained Mrs Cope. “One had 16 plants in and the other had six empty pots.”
Wright, 32, was not at home at the time, but was arrested four days later.
He answered the door and told officers: 'It was my cannabis. I was only growing a little bit.’.
As well as the plants and grow tents, police found seven fans, two filters, three lighting rigs and three transformers.
“While this was not an extensive site and was small-scale,” explained the prosecutor, “money had been spent on the equipment, and a reasonable amount.”
Wright, now of  Greenway, Bromley, admitted producing cannabis. The plants were said to have had a potential yield of about £2,000.
Imposing a jail term of six months suspended for two years, Recorder Brendan Finucane QC rejected Wright’s claim that he smoked 15 to 20 joints a day, saying that if that were true “his painting would be all over the shop.”
However, the recorder added there was no evidence of actual supply.
“I take the view it was coming close to it,” he said. “Even if you were a heavy user, I don’t believe for one moment you would have actually smoked all of this yourself.”
Wright, who was described as a long-term user of cannabis, was also ordered to carry out 100 hours unpaid work and pay £340 court costs within 14 days.
It is not known what happened to the burglars.

Man caught growing cannabis has ‘no intention of stopping’

How can this man be blamed? What harm has he done is he doing to anyone (except the loss of profit to the pharmaceutical companies that would be selling him the NHS, costly, more dangerous and less effective medication that he may well have already tried. How can there be any Justice in punishing him and what justification was there for interfering with his Human Right to a Private Life etc in the first place. Human Rights law specified that there needs to be justification to interfere with our Rights even if the law is being broken, and that justification must be that there is a threat to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. I would like to read the police court's justification. They will, no doubt, say that they are just implementing the law, but that is not justification

Hawick News, December 7 2011

http://www.hawick-news.co.uk/news/local-headlines/man_caught_growing_cannabis_has_no_intention_of_stopping_1_1993536

Man caught growing cannabis has ‘no intention of stopping’

A MAN caught growing cannabis claimed the illegal drug helped alleviate a medical condition.
Mark Makin said he had no intention of stopping using the class B drug, and producing it himself meant he didn’t have to buy it on the street.
Makin, 43, of Dovemount Place, admitted having cannabis and producing the drug at his home on September 2.
“His medical condition is relieved by taking cannabis,” explained defence solicitor Matt Patrick, “and that was the motivation behind him growing these plants.
“It also meant he was not having to move in circles he would have had to, to obtain it on the street,” he added.
Sheriff Donald Corke fined Makin, a sales assistant, £120, warning him his activity was illegal and would be closely monitored by police.
“I know that you feel fully justified in doing this, but it is illegal, and I have to uphold the law,” he told the accused.
“Because you have indicated you don’t intend to stop, you should be aware that the police will be keeping a close eye on you,” he added.

The Law – is it always Just?

It’s often easy for people to see that repressive laws in other countries are in some way wrong. Maybe they contravene Rights, are bias or give preferential treatment one section of the community, or just don’t make sense – they are not in the public interest.

But what about here in the UK? Are of Governments, whatever the political party, somehow divinely inspired and never make mistakes? Or do we also have bad and unjust laws to?

And if we do have bad laws, how do we get them changed or repealed? What happens when our Government refuses to listen to protests, petitions, letters? What can we do to change the law?

In short, next to nothing! We can elect a different Government (or try to) and hope for the best. That’s all folks! But is that the end? Does that leave us at the mercy of the politicians and the lawyers? Not quite: read on.

The POWER of the JURY

A few years ago, (1998), I wrote to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, asking whether the jury had the right to judge the justice of the law itself, after reading of such powers in the US. The reply from the Court Service stated that although the jury cannot judge the law itself, it is up to them “to apply the law as they see fit”

So it is quite clear, that as member of a jury, whatever the judge or anyone else says, it is your duty and responsibility not simply whether to ascertain guilt or innocence through the evidence presented in the trial, but also to consider whether or not the law has been correctly applied.

If you think the defendant should not even have been taken to court, despite the evidence, then you can say NOT GUILTY!

MIS-APPLICATION OF THE LAW

So what sort of case are we talking about here?

One obvious case would be seen if you watched the trial of a man for breaking into a house when clearly his purpose and intention was to rescue people from a fire. Or if he broke into a car to save a life. The evidence of forced entry – a criminal offence – would be clear enough; the man may even have admitted everything. But should he be punished?

Another case would be if a police officer, forensic scientist, were prosecuted for possession of an illegal drug when clearly it was in the course of his duty. Or in fact, a teacher, parent or doorman who had confiscated the drug with the intention of handing it in.

In both cases it would be unjust to find them guilty and punish them, if not simply silly. Fortunately such prosecutions are rare – but what about individual cases? How should we decide whether the law has been correctly applied? One thing is for sure – neither judge, prosecution nor defence lawyers are likely to be of much help in the courtroom; after all, they earn their money by appearing there.

A CRIME WITHOUT A VICTIM

You may have heard of holidaymakers taking their medication abroad where it is illegal, and getting prosecuted? Is that RIGHT? Is that JUST? Even though the laws of that country are quite explicit and those laws were broken (ignorance is no excuse).

What about a person in this country who is using a banned (illegal) substance to relieve intense pain, having found no alternative? That is: out of dire necessity?

In the case of cannabis, a plant grown and used medically in the UK and around the globe for hundreds and thousands of years – a plant known to relieve suffering from many ailments yet it has never killed any and has no fatal overdose? What would you do, faced with intense pain? Break the law or suffer agony and humiliation?

The Government flies in the face of literally MILLIONS of people who testify to the medical properties of cannabis, also known as hemp and marijuana, by denying that it has any medical value at all, despite licensing research into extracts. Furthermore, the High Court in London has ruled that the defence of medical “necessity” whereby people could hope to escape conviction is not valid.

SO ITS’ UP TO YOU THE JUROR

How can you, the JUROR, decide whether or not the law is being correctly applied in the case of possession, cultivation, or even supply, if it was for medical reasons?

Maybe a good starting point is to ask whether anyone has been helped, or hurt. Has there been any malice or threats, has there been any victims, has there been any property ruined or Rights infringed, has society been upset, has the safety and security of the country been put at risk?

It would be very hard to say yes to any of those questions in most cases where cannabis is being used as a medicine to alleviate symptoms, so why are the cases happening?

Surely the law is meant to protect the people, their houses and possessions, their rights, and the security and safety of the environment and the society we live in.

If the law is not doing that, why the court case?

As a member of a JURY (most of us will be at some time during our lives) you have the POWER to see JUSTICE prevail over unsound laws.

If you think the law has been MIS-APPLIED (and I am thinking specifically of medical cannabis possession or supply here when it prevents agony and suffering), it is UP TO YOU.

You can return the JUST verdict – NOT GUILTY. Nobody is allowed to pressurise you into doing otherwise.

THAT is certainly one way to halt the senseless prosecutions that cost sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds, do many-fold times more harm than good.

NO VICTIM – NO CRIME = NOT GUILTY