A UK Cannabis Activism Retrospective

 

 small problem with sound resolved after a few minutes

The Simpa Life Interview with Alun Buffry and Winston Matthews: Cannabis Campaiging

 https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=3871469946271962&ref=watch_permalink

 

Free Pencils at Polling Stations

 millions of pencils have been bought so that each voter can use one and place it in a box at the end - I wonder what will happen to them? Maybe they can be cleaned or left to stand for a couple of months and donated to schools in countries such as Egypt; i know they need them as the children find that their ballpoint pens quickly dry up.

 

PIGS, The Enemies of Legalisation

 

P is for paranoia and fear of persecution. This prevents cannabis users and non-users with a huge barrier to overcome before they can publicly speak out against prohibition. Users fear raids from the police and arrest, loss of employment and even imprisonment. Many professional people such as Doctors, Teachers, Lawyers, Probation Officers, Social Workers etc, although privately supporting legalisation or some lesser from of change in law, are afraid of persecution from people in power and the press. MP's of all parties can be silenced and pressurised to change their statements, by the Party Whips. Many Doctors quietly advise patients that cannabis is of possible benefit to them but will not make a public statement on the issue. If you are one of those professionals please speak out and help call an end to the suffering caused to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the UK, every year, under the inefficient and expensive attempts at suppressing freedom of choice, in general, cannabis in particular. If you are a user, fear not, for to express an opinion on the law is not an offense and does not indicate that you are a user. Many non-users advocate legalisation too.

 

I is for indifference and for ignorance. Many non-users and people who are alienated from society through illness, poverty or riches and power, remain unconcerned or unaware of the disastrous social and environmental effects of prohibition. These people need to be awoken. Many of them are on drugs - heroin addicts, alcoholics, Valium addicts, at all rungs of the social ladder; they just don't care. But others do care, they just either don't know or don't know what they can do. It is up to activists to educate and guide these people to the postbox and the ballot boxes. Then, when they do care, we need to reassure them to avoid them slipping into the description of P.

 

G is for greed. These are the highly profit-motivated suppliers of illegal cannabis, often of dubious quality, and those directors (and their minions) of the multinational corporations that profit by billions from their environmentally damaging synthetic and dangerous alternatives. These include petroleum companies who risk losses if hemp seed oil becomes widely available; pharmaceutical companies who would lose out if people take less of their synthetic drugs and more home grown cannabis; plastics and synthetic materials companies whose products could be replaced locally from locally grown cannabis; nuclear fuel and fossil fuel companies whose products could also be replaced by locally grown cannabis, far more efficiently and cheaply than for all modern fuels; timber companies who fear that cannabis would replace wood as a material for furnishing as well as paper and packing materials; breweries and tobacco companies who fear that the use of home grown cannabis would decrease the sales of their highly dangerous legal drugs; national and international criminal and terrorist organisations who profit from illegal cannabis, possibly even the secret services of certain countries (not yours, of course); police, solicitors, barristers, judges and prison staff, with all the associated industry at colossal public expense, who may be out of a job is 250,000 less people are searched and 100,000 less prosecuted, annually.

 

S is for squabblers and for separation.. Those people who continually insist upon arguing over matters of minor or academic differences which distract from the general cause of delay action towards the consensus aim of legalisation. Such arguments are divisive and unproductive, often originating from personal grievances. Some times such arguments are introduced by insincere campaigners, even infiltrators from corners supporting prohibition, whose aim is to suppress by division and mistrust. Other times the arguments may be prolonged by sincere people. When the squabble, due to personal grievances, interferes with actions of the general movement for legalisation, or any particular event or group, then the squabblers become enemies of the movement.

 

Don't be any part of PIGS. Wake up, learn, act, cooperate, become involved in this movement which is all about freedom of choice, lifestyle and religion. It is about the very rights granted by the United Nations Charters. Prohibition of cannabis is a prolonged attempt at mis-education and tyrannical control, and must be resisted by the masses.

The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice by Phil Monk and We The Undersigned

 

 Available on Amazon

ISBN 978 18384401 1 4

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.

Kier Starmer you have lost my Labour vote

 Dear Mr Starmer,

I will not be voting Labour under  a leadership that wants to lock up victimless cannabis users.  Your policy flies in the face a natural justice, Human Rights and scientific evidence.

Sir Keir Starmer says he opposes relaxing drugs laws and insists he is ‘proud’ to be patriotic

Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer Is Against Cannabis Decriminalisation

Keir Starmer criticised by ex-police officers for his 'nonsense' views on drugs

 

 

 

Man with Tourette's uses legal cannabis UK march 2021

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

 

STATEMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

ARTICLE 8:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 9:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

UNLESS it can be shown that the possession or cultivation of cannabis for own use or the consumption and / or sharing of cannabis alone or with others, poses a risk to “public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, then any interference by any authority with the Rights under Article 8 and 9 IS CONTRARY TO Human Rights Act 1998, and CONSTITUTES AN OFFENCE IN LAW.

 

WE THE UNDERSIGNED USW Documentary