Thursday, 13 December 2018

Do MP's really care about their constituents that need or use the cannabis plant and risk prosecution?

SADLY most Labour MP's did not bother turning up to vote in Norman Lamb's cannabis bill, but here is a list of MP's that did vote either way.

One would think that considering how many of their constituents use cannabis and how many have been criminalised for possession or growing a few plants for their own beneficial use in their own private accommodation, this is SHOCKING - it shows that they simply do not care and few even know the truth about this beneficial plant

IF your MP voted against or did not vote NOW IS THE TIME to write to them; you can find their email or write to House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation) bill by Norman Lamb

Saturday, 3 November 2018

In many prisons cannabis keeps the inmates quiet

In many prisons they unofficially turn an eye away from use of cannabis that is smuggled in: that is because it keeps the inmates quiet and does no harm.
The alternative is hooch, home made alcohol, and that does not keep the inmates quiet at all, or hard drugs that can often cause problems.

That is my message to the Government: by turning their eyes away, by police not chasing after small-scale growers and personal consumers, as some forces have now decided to do, it will keep us quiet. 
Allow people to grow our own, share it, consume it in private and in safety, away from those that do not want to be near it.
 That form of decriminalisation means a change in policy, not even a change in law; that would come later.
Immediate decriminalisation would also mean that the Right to a Private Life and the Right to choose and practice ones own beliefs are respected and are protected by law. 

That is completely separate to the issue of supplying medical grade cannabis products and a separate issue to commercial supply.

Because not everyone can or wants to grow their own, they will want to buy: that can easily be achieved through licensed collective growing / transparent cannabis social clubs and licensed outlets with quality controls and taxes on profits

That would surely keep us quiet?

But this government and probably not the next will not do that.

So --- how do we make some noise without getting drunk?

UK prescription cannabis farce leaves out many thousands in need

Whatever happens in the "medical cannabis" campaign, I personally think that some people that want to use cannabis to benefit themselves and their health will be left out and fear that they will still be subjected to arrest and prosecution for growing a few plants at home or possession - until the campaign focuses on equal rights for all. EVERYONE must be allowed their Rights to private life and choice and practice or beliefs, whther they want to use cannabis as a medicine, sacrament or just for fun, inspiration, relaxation, socialisation etc. 

Then, when everyone is allowed to grow their own, the law on medicine prescriptions will be eased. Otherwise we will be in the same position with cannabinoids as we are with opiates.

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

Letter to Norman Lamb MP regarding "skunk" cannabis

Hi, I just read your article and I must say that I am disappointed that you are still repeating the "skunk" myth.

However the politicians and media choose to define "skunk" in fact it is simply one strain of cannabis that was developed to increase THC content.

Having sampled even some of the strongest forms of cannabis bud (herbal) in UK as well as Dutch coffeeshops and private clubs in Barcelona, and having been consuming cannabis off and on (nut mostly on) for almost 50 years, I can tell you that imported cannabis such as Thai, Vietnam, Indian, Hawaii, Columbia and so on, wee at least as strong if not stronger.

Also incorrect is the suggestion from Prof Nutt that herbal cannabis is stronger than hash, is incorrect and misleading. Hashish is made from the most active parts of the cannabis plant and is more concentrated than the plant used to make it.

In addition, cannabis oils (THC) products such as Sativex, is a more concentrated product made from the strong bud that you call "skunk".

Lastly I would like to suggest that the Human Right to a Private Life and the Right to choose and practice our own beliefs, provided it does no harm or poses no threat to others, seems to be largely ignored by this government which, like the previous ones, have walked over those rights in their effort to prop up their failed policy of prohibition that has clearly done far more harm than good.

You wrote "Left in the hands of illegal dealers, people have no idea of the safety or potency of what they are buying. Dealers typically have little interest in their customers’ well being, and quite often have an interest in getting them hooked on harder strains like skunk."

I think this is a grossly incorrect assumption and the way to deal with it would be to demand accurate labelling and not restrict choice buy limiting potency.

I hope you take this in the educational spirit that I intend.


Taken from "Cannabis: Challenging the Criminal Justice System" 2003, written by Roger Warren Evans, retired Human Rights barrister


The hopes of reformers were high that the Human Rights Act 1998 would strengthen the drive for drugs law reform. The incorporation into English law of the rights of privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights offered to defendants the real prospect of a defence against drug-possession and personal consumption charges. Prosecution for personal consumption constituted an "interference" with the defendants "private life", the reformers reasoned, which could not be justified under the specific terms of the Convention. Those arguments remain strong, and persuasive.

So persuasive indeed, that the UK prosecuting authorities now avoid simple "possession" charges altogether. They have clearly come to the same conclusion, about Article 8. Attractive "deals" are now commonly offered to those charged with "minor" personal possession offences. All the indications are that full criminal proceedings are now being limited to the "aggravated" charges - possession of large quantities of drugs (in excess of personal consumption requirements), dealing or "trafficking", supply to minors, growing or manufacturing prohibited substances, and permitting the use of premises for drugs purposes. This self-imposed restriction itself constitutes a victory for the human rights cause.

But the victory is of limited scope. For the Human Rights Act (Article 8) does not offer any defence to these "aggravated" charges.

Article 8 continues, however, to exercise its influence. There is a powerful Article 8 case to be made against the appalling Regulations which classify drug consumption (including cannabis) as a "relevant disability" justifying the withdrawal of a driving licence. Mandatory drug testing poses a range of different issues, according to its administrative context. Testing by private employers remains a matter of personal contract, falling outside the Human Rights Act. For public employees, its legality will turn on its relevance to the functions performed by the employee. And within the context of judicial proceedings, its legality will turn on its precise statutory context: there is no neat Yes/No test. But we should continue to monitor the gradual creep of drugs testing, and remain vigilant to identify its abuse.

The Human Rights Act has played a leavening role in that wider sea-change of public and political opinion. Nine MPs and one British MEP[2003] are now publicly committed to the legalisation of all drugs.

It is true that the prosecuting authorities, by adopting a sophisticated enforcement strategy, have avoided any high-level challenge in the Court of Appeal, where it really matters. But nobody should lose faith with Article Eight. This great human rights declaration has already softened the style of public law enforcement in the UK, and it retains huge potential to drive back the boundaries of abuse by public authorities.

And it remains true that, while the statutory drugs-prohibition regime remains in place, the judicial process will remain a cat-and-mouse game, with reformers constantly harassing the Authorities. It is only the comprehensive legalisation of supply and consumption that will bring to individuals the full recognition of their personal freedom and the sovereignty of their personal judgment in the conduct of their own lives. That is a worthy goal, and Article 8 will continue to offer support to those seeking to achieve it.

Written by Roger Warren Evans Barrister at Law Secretariat Angel Declaration February 2003

Visualisation from 'Myhat in Egypt: Through the Eyes of a God':

Sunday, 14 October 2018

on the rescheduling of cannabinoids in the UK

Recently the press has widely reported that medicinal cannabis is to be rescheduled to allow specialised doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical-grade cannabis products and extracts to a limited number of patients that have tried all other available treatments and pills for their illnesses.

The UK Government recently announced this decision.

Although this move may lead to the availability of pharmaceutical cannabis products for some, it itself does nothing to address the lack of justice in the treatment of other victimless cannabis consumers.

Let all adults be allowed to grow cannabis for themselves, families and friends: let carers grow it for their craes; let private cannabis clubs be allowed to grow for members and allow consumption in clubs as well as in private houses. Let doctors prescribe cannabonoids and pharmaceutical products for those that need and choose them over the natural plant. Protect cannabis consumers in the same ways as the law protects those that choose to drink alcohol. Ultimately license shops with consumer protection laws applied and tax their profits.
Looking at that as my ideal, and I believe the ideal of many others, this rescheduling is a small step in the right direction, but the problem is that it really puts cannabis into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and profiteers and I don't think does much for the campaign for recognition and protection of our individual rights or equal justice for all.

My fear is that it will put back that campaign for justice: just as people say that doctors prescribe opiates but that does not mean people can make their own, people may say: "if you need medicinal cannabis, go see your doctor"; the doctor may or may not send the patient to a specialist, and they will only prescribe it for certain ailments after all other medications have failed (last resort), a very limited number of patientes, bless them, will get it ... and everyone else is in the same position as now and maybe having to disclose their private information on their state of health or illness in court in mitigation, same as now.

BUT of course I am happy for those loads of people that will benefit although not so pleased that one of them is the prime minister's husband's bank account.

UK: Insider Trading? Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban

Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform
Researching Reform

Monday 02 Jul 2018

GW Pharmaceuticals, a company whose largest investor is UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s husband, Philip May, has received FDA approval for Epidiolex, a new cannabis derived drug to treat childhood epilepsy. The announcement comes just days after the Home Office relaxed the UK’s strictly controlled ban on the medication for two children suffering from related conditions.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid issued a licence for a batch of cannabis oil, which is illegal in the UK, to treat Billy Caldwell, who suffers from violent epileptic seizures. Shortly after the move, Alfie Dingley was also granted a license for the oil, to treat his epilepsy. Alfie had previously been denied the medication.

The Home Office licenses were issued in the middle of June, with FDA approval of GW’s new medicine being announced on the 25th June, in a GW press release aimed at London and California. The approval for Epidiolex would have been given before the 25th.

FDA approval means that the drug can be purchased within the 30 current states in the US which allow medical marijuana once the chemical compound within the medication gets its classification status. California was the first state to allow the consumption of cannabis for medicinal purposes, which it did in 1996. It also has the largest maximum limit for possession in the US.

GW’s move to include London in the press release is not an accident. Epidiolex is under review by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and a decision on whether to recommend approval is likely to be made at the start of 2019. The UK government is also preparing a consultation on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

The timeline for the cannabis medication’s production and approval raises serious questions about whether the government has been involved in insider dealing, which is illegal in the UK:

2016 – Theresa May wins the general election
May’s husband owns the majority share in the world’s largest producer of cannabis, GW Pharmaceuticals
2017 – Victoria Atkins Becomes Parliamentary Under Secretary – despite almost no government experience
Atkins’ husband owns British Sugar – The company that produces the main ingredient GW uses for its cannabis medication
2018 – Atkins Is Promoted To Home Office Minister
June 2018 – The Home Office seize cannabis medication from a child at the airport, and then return it after the press are alerted to the story
16 June 2018 – The Home Office starts to make exceptions for children who need cannabis oil to treat epilepsy
25 June 2018 – GW Pharmaceuticals announces the FDA has approved cannabis medication it has made, to treat childhood epilepsy
The cannabis medication is now being reviewed by a European body, whilst the government considers making cannabis medication legal in the UK.
Early 2019 – GW Pharmaceuticals finds out if their cannabis medication has been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Researching Reform wrote about GW Pharmaceuticals last month, when it was revealed that several husbands of senior government officials, including Theresa May and Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins, had substantial interests in GW, whose chairman is a conservative party donor. Disgraced Family Court psychiatrist George Hibbert is also an investor in the pharmaceutical company.

Very many thanks to Janie Doe for sharing the press release with us.

Sunday, 7 October 2018

UK Government continues to tell lies about the cannabis plant

The UK Government continue to treat the cannabis plant as if it was a dangerous drug, restricting its cultivation to their elite profiteering husbands and friends who will be charging grossly inflated prices for aplant that can easily and safely be grown at home.

RESCHEDULING is not enough - we have had over 45 years of government lies.

In the name of Justice and Rights, the law must be repealed.

UK: Medical cannabis 'will be available on prescription within a month'
Cannabis News

Thursday, 4 October 2018


COMPETITION WIN A BOOK - closes December 31st 2018.
1) simply: POST (IN COMMENTS on the post (on ABeFree Publishing Facebook page at ) a picture of yourself holding a copy of any of my books,
2) invite all your FB friends to LIKE and share your photo
3) hope that your pic gets more likes than anyone else.

The pic with the MOST LIKES on this page will win a copy of any of my books -in the event of a tie, everyone with the same number of Likes on their pic will win any of my books.

You can find my books on Amazon and kindle or here

Wednesday, 12 September 2018

Cannabis pages on Facebook hidden in searches

Searching facebook for cannabis pages, I get "We couldn't find anything for cannabis"

Is it not time we let Facebook know that we are not happy with this type of censorship?

Please sign this petition
Like this FB page

Sunday, 19 August 2018

On the Head of Ameny

Taken from Myhat in Egypt: Through the Eyes of a God 


A few days later, I had the biggest surprise of life time since I first met Ed. Suddenly, after playing hoops, Ameny asked Ed if he could try me on and if it would be agreeable with Ed to make a similar hat for himself, in the colours white and red, signifying Upper and Lower Egypt. Ed knew that the white crown of Upper Egypt was officially known as the Hedjet, whilst the Red Crown of Lower Egypt was called the Deshret.

After Egypt had been unified, the double crown, red and white, was called the Pschent. That was several hundred years before Ameny and the double crown would be worn by him when he became Pharaoh, as it was by his father Senwosret. Ed was not in the habit of letting others wear me, although I had been on Ana's head and a few others over the years. He could hardly say no to a boy god who was his host, so he took me off, bowed and presented me to Ameny.

What a revelation!

The boy totally believed that he was of divine birth, that he was a god and that he was all powerful. Only his own father was above him in rank. I realised that that Ameny regarded everyone else as inferior, including Ed and Ana, other members of his own family and court, including the many Priests that he regarded with suspicion and as struggling to gain position in his eyes. He had little genuine respect or care for anyone, not even his own family and, as Ameny knew his successors had done, was quite prepared to destroy people's lives and use people for his own purposes. Ameny knew that one day he may have to dispose of his father.

He felt that when he openly worshipped the gods, he was worshipping only wh at he was. Ana's name meant Goddess. Ameny knew that Ed and Ana came to him from a very faraway and mysterious place, a place where huge birds carried people through the skies and people communicated through the air even showing pictures through their mysterious boxes powered by an unseen energy called electricity which was, he had concluded, a great gift from the gods. Ameny saw himself as indestructible: he could do whatever he wanted to or with whoever he wanted, except he could not fly. The head of Ameny was nothing like the head of Ed, or Ana, or any other head that

I been upon. The world view was so different that I became almost lost in it. For the first time in my existence, I understood that it was I that was the superior being. I had a better memory and better understanding of many things than Ed.

If I was to remain on the head of Ameny, I could rule the world.

Friday, 3 August 2018

Visualisation from 'Myhat in Egypt: Through the Eyes of a God':by Alun Buffry

 Myhat, Ed and Ana visit the Pyramids 1989 A visualisation of a visit to the Giza site in Egypt to see inside and outside of the Great Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu), taken from 'MyHat in Egypt Through the Eyes of a God' by Alun Buffry ISBN 978 0 9932107 7 8 available through Amazon and good shops.

Virgin Mobile UK - Just the worst customer service? In your opinion.

if you are thinking of taking out a contract with Virgin Mobile - DON'T.

Try Giffgaff

Saturday, 28 July 2018

Medicalisation of cannabis favours pharmaceutical profiteers

So in 1971 the then government banned the use of cannabis as a medicine including tincture, on the grounds that its use could lead to use of hard drugs and an ill-informed / lie in international and UK legislation that classified the plant as having no medicinal value.

Now, some 47 years later, after causing many tens of thousands of people including children to unnecessarily suffer from dreadful ailments and injuries (and basically calling those that claimed that cannabis helped were liars), our government is acknowledging that cannabis does, in fact, have medicinal properties.

So they will allow a very strict and limited prescription system for certain cannabinoids and pharmaceutical substances such as Sativex and Bedrocan (Sativex has been allowed for some time but has been hard to get and expensive) .. whilst continuing to threaten everyone that does not fall within their definitions, with prison sentences.

So far they have failed to recognise the wide range of benefits including as a preventative medicinal substance.

So whilst this small step may appear to some as a huge step, it is a very limited step that will benefit a minority rather than a majority of those in need.

In 1971 they then argued that cannabis "misuse" could be gateway to hard drug addiction, so they closed the door.

Now they want to avoid widespread medicinal availability to prevent that same door from opening.

I say, legalise now and hold the door open. It is a fact that even under prohibition, the very large majority of cannabis consumers do not later become drug "addicts" and those that have, are actually a product of prohibition and the profiteers.

Wednesday, 25 July 2018

Cannabis: use and misuse: the false distinction

Supposedly ... cannabis was included in the Misuse of Drugs Act to try to stop or decrease the "misuse" of cannabis (as with other drugs listed) - that means the use other than as a medicine, although cannabis was also scheduled as a drug with no medicinal uses: that is all use is Misuse.

Now the scheduling and laws are being changed and cannabis, CBD, THC, will once again be recognised as a drug with medical uses.

However, cannabis will remain in the Misuse of Drugs Act, will still be classified as a drug with a potential for "misuse", that is when used "recreationally" or "religiously".

People will be arrested for growing their own (unless of course, as some people want, some people will be permitted to grow their own with doctor's permission or special exemptions.

People may still be arrested for possession without prescription.

But those in medical need, with their doctor's agreement (if they can get it) will be prescribed cannabis and cannabinoids produced by pharmaceutical companies, and their pains reduced, which of course is good.

But the false distinction between users and the matter of their Rights and Freedoms, is still being ignored.

Otherwise law-abiding people that choose to produce and possess, use, share, cannabis even in the privacy of their own homes, may still be open to ATTACK by tyrants and prohibitionists that want to ignore their Rights.

That is the majority of UK cannabis consumers and those unable to get prescriptions.

The "we want medical cannabis", playing into the hands of pharmaceutical profiteers, are taking is back to that false distinction that gives the wrong impression that the law is about drugs, when in fact it is about people, and largely ignoring the issue of Human Rights laws, which are higher laws that are meant to stop tyrannical laws such as the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Monday, 23 July 2018

From Myhat in Egypt, Through The Eyes of a God: AMENY

Each evening there were dancers and jugglers and clowns and a lot of sex as young girls and courtiers came on board from the other boats. Bertie, for sure, was having the time of his life. He spent a great deal of the time naked, with a girl or two at his side or sitting on his lap. He certainly was not shy. Ed and Ana agreed to restrict their sexual activities to the covered sleeping section allocated to them. But they did not restrict the amount of sex that they had. On those occasions, Ed carefully hung me from the wooden struts. One morning, Ameny invited the three English people to see his collection of drawings. There were sketches of pyramids and of gods and goddesses, many of the boy himself, some with his father the Pharaoh, one that the boy said was of his mother. Plenty of animals and plants.

To Ed's surprise, he found himself looking at drawings of planes, helicopters and what looked like astronauts with spaceships, even cars with wheels. He had seen no vehicles with wheels at all, during his visits to this time. He spoke to Ana and Bertie later about those drawings and they agreed that certainly this could be seen as a corruption of the time-line. Somebody from the future had been here and left those drawings. Ed wondered if it may have been Abamira's uncle Mustafa, who was not to be seen here and whom, in the future, was supposed to be in Cairo. A few days later, I had the biggest surprise of life time since I first met Ed.

Suddenly, after playing hoops, Ameny asked Ed if he could try me on and if it would be agreeable with Ed to make a similar hat for himself, in the colours white and red, signifying Upper and Lower Egypt. Ed knew that the white crown of Upper Egypt was officially known as the Hedjet, whilst the Red Crown of Lower Egypt was called the Deshret. After Egypt had been unified, the double crown, red and white, was called the Pschent. That was several hundred years before Ameny and the double crown would be worn by him when he became Pharaoh, as it was by his father Senwosret.

THROUGH THE EYES OF A GOD Ed was not in the habit of letting others wear me, although I had been on Ana's head and a few others over the years. He could hardly say no to a boy god who was his host, so he took me off, bowed and presented me to Ameny. What a revelation!

The boy totally believed that he was of divine birth, that he was a god and that he was all powerful. Only his own father was above him in rank. I realised that that Ameny regarded everyone else as inferior, including Ed and Ana, other members of his own family and court, including the many Priests that he regarded with suspicion and as struggling to gain position in his eyes. He had little genuine respect or care for anyone, not even his own family and, as Ameny knew his successors had done, was quite prepared to destroy people's lives and use people for his own purposes. Ameny knew that one day he may have to dispose of his father. He felt that when he openly worshipped the gods, he was worshipping only what he was. Ana's name meant Goddess. Ameny knew that Ed and Ana came to him from a very far away and mysterious place, a place where huge birds carried people through the skies and people communicated through the air even showing pictures through their mysterious boxes powered by an unseen energy called electricity which was, he had concluded, a great gift from the gods. Ameny saw himself as indestructible: he could do whatever he wanted to or with whoever he wanted, except he could not fly. The head of Ameny was nothing like the head of Ed, or Ana, or any other head that I been upon. The world view was so different that I became almost lost in it.

TAKEN FROM Myhat in Egypt Through the Eyes of a God ISBN 978-0-9932107-7-8

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

The law, cannabis, medicines and our Rights -get the debate on track

Almost all the debate I am seeing is about whether cannabis helps people or drives them psychotic or makes them ill, or both, which are medical issues. Little mention of my or your human rights, which I never asked for but was "given". The law is not actually about drugs or plants or medicines, it is about what some people can or cannot do with them - possession, production, supply.

If we have a right to a private life then that must include the right to grow or possess or even share with willing people, unless it threatens PUBLIC health, public order, or the rights of others.

Issues such as whether somebody else is cured of illness or has their pains or tremors eased, or suffers from psychosis or even dies of cancer, has nothing whatsoever to do with possession, production or sharing in PRIVATE. What difference it makes to driving or singing skills, is not the issue when it comes to private life.

Limits or otherwise on strength, claims that childrenmay  use cannabis or that some people later take drugs, is not the issue when it comes to Private Life.

Billy Caldwell, Alfie and other children, in fact, don't get me wrong, but their survival has nothing to do with what we do in our private lives.

I say that because the law targets our private lives; people get busted in their homes even though they pose no threat or do no harm

IT SEEMS TO ME obvious that those that get benefit from the cannabis plant or its products that are otherwise inhumanely suffering or risking life itself, should be protected by the Government, not punished by it, and should have that medication available in a pure and safe form.

But that is a health issue, Of course they have the right to live a healthy life. Yet it is a different issue, and many of the politicians are talking about allowing pharmaceutical grade cannabis or its products including oils, on prescription. Well we know how much is already being grown ready for that profitable situation to become acceptable to the public, after the years of lies, by GW Pharmaceuticals and British Sugar and who owns shared in those?

When somebody says that cannabis use heals or harms, saves lives or ruins them, leads to drug use or not, whether safer than aspirin or alcohol or sugar - I have to ask


Those that cannabis consumption helps or those that cannabis harms?

Those that later take drugs or those that do not?

Those that eat sugar or those that do not?

Those that harm others, or those that do not?

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Corrupt UK Government to restrict cannabis production to the elite

Despite recent news that the UK Home Office minister has used his 'extraordinary powers" to allow Bill Caldwell to be given cannabis oil to stop his epileptic fits and possible save his life ...

Despite that many thousands of people are claiming medicinal benefits through their use of cannabis bought or grown illegally ..

Despite the fact that many other countries have made "medicinal" cannabis available ...

Despite the fact that not one person has died from cannabis use per se...

Despite public opinion ..

Despite the fact that cannabis itself is still scheduled as a substance with no medicinal applications and yet THC and CBD have medicinal uses, and that British Sugar Cooporation produces and exports more "medical grade" cannabis than almost every other country ...  NOTE the ex-drug minister Victoria Atkin's husband is a major shreholder)

Despite the fact that GW Pharamceuticals have been granted licence to produce the whole-plant extract Sativex which they sell at grossly inflated prices (even compared with street prices) NOTE Theresa May's husband is a major shareholder)

UK: Theresa May personally promised my epileptic son cannabis oil - and he's still waiting 3 months later
UK: Cannabis debate: I appealed to the prime minister 

 UK: William Hague calls for Theresa May to legalise cannabis 

 UK: Lord Hague says government should 'be bold' and legalise cannabis 

 UK: Government will have blood on its hands if medicinal cannabis is not prescribed, says father of ill child 

 UK: Cannabis war 'comprehensively lost', says William Hague 

 UK: Theresa May REFUSES to back Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt on changing the law on medical cannabis after epileptic boy Billy Caldwell's case 

 UK: Tonia Antoniazzi MP: My constituents need to have access to medicinal cannabis 

 UK: Jeremy Hunt shows support for changing law over medical cannabis oil use 

 UK: Review needed on medicinal cannabis cases, says May 

 UK: Cannabis oil: cabinet appears divided as Hunt calls for review 

 UK: Middlesbrough MP 'wonders if cannabis could have helped son' 

 UK: Cannabis oil row: Billy Caldwell discharged from hospital 

 UK: Cannabis oil row prompts legalisation call 

 UK: Cannabis oil: My daughter could die tomorrow 

 UK: Billy Caldwell: Senior MP urges reform over medical cannabis 

 UK: Home Office grants licence for epileptic boy's medicinal cannabis oil 

 Cannabis oil returned to UK boy Billy Caldwell after hospitalization 

 UK: Home Office returns cannabis oil for boy's epilepsy treatment 

 UK: Billy Caldwell 'will have medical cannabis returned' after being confiscated by Home Office 

 UK: Epileptic boy Billy Caldwell has 'life-threatening' seizures' after cannabis confiscated 

 UK: 'Dying' Billy Caldwell rushed to hospital 

 UK: Medical cannabis and the challenge for regulation of medicines 

 UK: You've signed my boy's death warrant, says cannabis row mother 

 UK: Mum defiant as son's cannabis medication is seized at airport 

 UK: Mother of severely autistic boy has 'life-saving' cannabis oil confiscated at Heathrow 

 UK: Why we must legalise cannabis now for the sake of public health 

 UK: Legalising cannabis could earn Treasury 3.5 billion pounds 

 22 European Countries and Their Cannabis Laws

 New UN report reveals UK is world’s biggest producer of medical cannabis

 Where Is Marijuana Legal? Peru The Latest Country To Legalize

 Britain is largest exporter of legal cannabis in the world despite ban

Alfie Dingley: Mum criticises decision to deny cannabis treatment for son with severe epilepsy


Tuesday, 12 June 2018

Billy Caldwell, the use of cannabis as a medicine: Letter to Chloe Smith MP Norwich North

Dear Ms Smith,

I am personally disgusted with the way this Government is behaving over the issue of cannabis as a medciine.  In particular the announcement that Bill Caldwell is not to be allowed to be given cannabis oil by his mother, when it is apparent that it is keeping him alive.

Withdrawing life-saving medicine is the same as withdrawing food or water, and if the result is death, it is surely murder.

Cannabis is scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act as aplant drug with no medicinal uses.

So it seems strange, especially as Mrs May's husband is an investor in GW Pharmaceuticals, the company that miraculously extracts Sativex, a whole-plant extract in alcohol, from the plant to sell at greatly inflated prices and with limited availabilty.

Even more strange the Victoria Atkins MP's husband is a major investor in British Sugar Corperation, which apparently exports millions of pounds of cannabis 'for medicinal use'.

Whilst these men and others make massive profits from cannabis, individuals in the UK are still subject to arrest for growing even just a few plants at home for own use.

The UK seems very much behind so many countries in the world today that allow various forms of cannabis on prescription?

WHY is that?  Is it in any way connected to the personal investments of those two men and others?

Alun Buffry, Norwich North

Saturday, 2 June 2018

Is cannabis a drug?


When we talk about cannabis we are not talking about what is not cannabis
Spain: 'Cannabis is not a drug': Spain's anti-drug czar:30 Sept 2013
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cannabis plant and its derivatives which contain THC are classified as a Class B Drug and prohibited. Some parts of the plant, such as seeds, roots and stalks, do not fall within the Act. On the question of leaves, forensic scientists look for the presence of THC and other active cannabinoids, and if found, the substance falls within the Act. Some argue that cannabis is a drug in any case, as it can be used as a constituent in a medicine. Others argue that parts of the cannabis plant cannot correctly, semantically be called a drug at all, especially as it is neither physically addictive nor toxic in any conceivably consumable amount. The correct meaning of the word 'drug' as applied to cannabis continues to be debated; nevertheless, in British law, cannabis is a drug. 


Cannabis has been described as one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man, and safer than most common vegetables - DEA Judge Young, 1988. Others describe cannabis as "remakably safe, but not completely harmless" - Prof. Lester Grinspoon MD1997). Some even claim that cannabis is completely harmless and beneficial to man. Yet other scientists have inferred health risks involved the smoking of cannabis, mostly based upon the results of experimentation with THC extracts and synthetic THC carried out on mice, rats and monkeys. It is generally accepted that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco. The question of the risk element attached to the use of cannabis will continue to be a matter for the experts, but irrespective of the answer there exists no just reason to punish cannabis users or those who grow it. 

Campaigners, scientists and doctors cannot agree. Cannabis has been used for centuries, both medicinally and for the high, as well as for rope etc, long before the days of drugs and synthetics. Much of the discussion is based on dictionary definitions which change with time. Tell a Rastafarian that his sacrament is a drug and you will be in trouble! Look at a bale of hemp fibre, hemp seed oil soap, paper, cloth or seedcake - they are all pure cannabis - and then tell me it is a drug.


Drugs are associated with addiction, habit and problems. Cannabis is associated with none of these. "Cannabis is not dope, it's everything from rope to hope!"

The following article is an extract from The Report of the FCDA Europe
Although on average approximately 75 people per annum in the U.S. are revealed by post mortem (autopsy) examination to have cannabis in their system at the time of their death, their deaths were induced by causes not associated with cannabis. In all the long history of its use of which the record dates back approximately 5,000 years, cannabis has never been cause to a single fatality. Medical records and study of worldwide pertinent writings over the millennia show that at no time has any person died from the ingestion of any amount of cannabis, ever.
Cannabis is a NON-TOXIC substance. One hundred per cent of the scores of studies by American universities and research facilities show that toxicity does not exist in cannabis. (U.C.L.A, Harvard, Temple, etc.)
All the in-depth medico-scientific clinical studies conducted (for example, US-Jamaican, US-Costa Rican, LaGuardia, etc) have revealed that cannabis contains no addictive properties in any part of the plant or its smoke, so, unlike and in contrast to tobacco, alcohol, and all the legal or illegal 'recreational' substances cannabis is both non-habit-forming and non-toxic. Therefore cannabis is uniquely safe. In this Report, let it be unequivocal and clearly understood that the use of "safe" in the context of cannabis use, by definition means,: "free of danger, risk or injury".

Cannabis Is Not A Drug: Accurate Language.

From all the medico-scientific aspects, harmless cannabis is not only wrongly defined as a "drug" in any meaningful (semantic) definition of the word but also, by definition and empirical reality, wrongly proscribed as a "drug" (or other substance) under legislation regulations.
Although dictionaries vary slightly in their definitions of "drug", virtually all refer to, and rely for definition on, a drug's habit-forming, addictive properties. Webster's New World Dictionary, for example, defines "drug" as: "a narcotic, hallucinogen, especially one that is habit-forming." As is confirmed by the aforementioned medico-scientific research, cannabis contains no habit-forming properties in the plant itself or its smoke. Evident from the most fundamental and widely inferred meaning, by definition based on empirical fact, cannabis is not a drug.
The word 'drug' derives from Old Dutch meaning dried herbs, as used in food, for healing and in the dyeing of textiles. There was no connotation of addiction. (viz: the Wealth of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith; Book One, Chapter One). In the twentieth Century, that meaning has been transformed by the specious pseudo-philosophy of Prohibition.
The invalidity of linking cannabis with "drugs" is further confirmed by the U.S. government's Bureau of Mortality Statistics. The table, below, demonstrates in the most obvious manner that cannabis by any meaningful definition, traditional or modern, is not a drug and cannabis cannot (correctly) be categorised or referred to as a drug.

Sample year 1988. U.S. federal government Bureau of Mortality Statistics.
SUBSTANCE............................................NUMBER OF DEATHS PER ANNUM.
TOBACCO................................................................................ 340,000 to 425,000
ALCOHOL (not including 50% of all highway deaths
And 65% of all murders).......................................................150,000 +
ASPIRIN (Including deliberate overdoses) ................................................180 to 1,000 +
CAFFEINE (From stress, ulcers, triggering irregular heartbeats etc) ..................1,000 to 10,000
LEGAL DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from legal, prescribed
Patent medicines and / or mixing with alcohol) ......14,000 to 27,000
ILLICIT DRUG OVERDOSE (Deliberate or accidental from all illegal drugs).........3,8000 to 5,200
THEOPHYLLINE (Prescribed asthma drug) ..........................................................50


To those people in whose (financial) interests it is to perpetuate the Prohibition of Cannabis the semantically incorrect use of the word "drug" where cannabis is concerned, is a premeditated misuse of terminology. This serves strategy advantageous to Prohibitionists, and comprises a simple but effective mechanism of disinformation, by putting the harmless herb into an unjustifiable association with addictive and harmful drugs.
The reality is clear: cannabis and those pernicious substances, the drugs, are wholly unalike. As the word "drug" is wrong and inapplicable to cannabis, it is necessary to establish a correct word, veracious vocabulary, which is fitting.

From The Report of the FCDA Because cannabis has been loosely, widely and incorrectly referred to in the past as a "drug" does not mean that this basic untruth can become acceptable. On the contrary, since the introduction of Prohibition the legal situation compels veracity and clarity more than ever, for not to articulate the truth accurately involves perjury. Yet truthful language, the truth, exposes the mendacious basis to the Crime that is this Prohibition of Cannabis
The Australian Government Report says "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and as an hallucinogen. Cannabinoids represent a UNIQUE PHARMACOLOGICAL CLASS OF COMPOUNDS"


According to the Oxford Pocket Dictionary to intoxicate is to make drunk, excite, elate, beyond self-control. Unlike alcohol cannabis users do not lose self-control. Massive amounts just send them to sleep.
Intoxicants are potentially toxic, that is poisonous, with a certain overdose level often dependent on the individual. There has never been a single death directly attributed to cannabis use, in 5000 years of history, with hundreds of millions of users in the world. There is NO TOXIC AMOUNT OF CANNABIS. One theory states that an amount of 2 pounds eaten in ten minutes, an impossible feat and not certain to cause death. No animal has died of an overdose of cannabis.
Many substances which are mind-altering or mood changing are not drugs : hormones, endorphins, adrenaline.
Conscious-altering substance which we consume but which are not generally regarded as drugs include sugar, caffeine and chocolate.


THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol is one of many active ingredients in cannabis. It can also be produced synthetically. Organic cannabis contains over 1000 other substances; like any herb it is the holistic use of the whole herb or medicine which is vital. 30 or 40 cannabinoids have been identified. Any judgment of cannabis based on the supply of THC to patients is unfounded.
Cannabis contains THC but cannabis is not THC. It is incorrect methodologically to mix in extraneous, irrelevant THC findings, or data from isolated cannabinoids, and then make false claims relating to cannabis.


When you take out a contract for 24 months or whatever, with Virgin and several other companies the same, which includes buying the handset, make sure you mark ona calender the date it runs out, because THEY WILL NOT BE TELLING YOU, instead they will keep charging you the same amount after the contract expires until YOU PHONE THEM to cancel, but when you try to get the phone repaired, in this case just a new battery, you may well and probably be told that they will not fix it because the phone has been yours since the contract ran out, despite that you have payed the same amount as if buying it, for months and presumably for decades until you phone them.
With VIRGIN MOBILE we then phoned then 4 times to be told that we were "probably" entitled to a refund (in this case over £100) and 4 times told that management would call us back within 48 hours, which they failed to do.
VIRGIN and the others will then try to blame you, the customer, for not cancelling the contract. They must make millions of pounds like this, through direct debits, especially from elderly and vulnerable customers. It is nothing but a SCAM.
It was not my phone and I took up the issue with Virgin Mobile for my friend.
Now I have mentioned the case on their facebook page and have been told to engage in yet another conversation so they "can look into it". They have the case number, they have the records, they know that this is not an unusual case.
This has been going on now for over 18 months (although we have cancelled the contract, no more payments taken, but no refund.
Sadly I have to say that in our experience Virgin are best avoided, but I hear it's much the same with Vodaphone and others.

Friday, 27 April 2018


The policy pursued at present by the Government flouts common justice and common sense.
Quite simply, the policy is illegal: cannabis is a safe, beneficial and natural commodity and the laws which ban it are clearly in violation of several articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 
The preamble to the UN Declaration, signed by Britain in 1948, establishes these Rights for all time: they are unchangeable and universally applicable. The preamble also explains that the Declaration in spirit is a declaration of the brotherhood and equality of man. It demands that we treat each other with respect and tolerance. How does the prohibition of a beneficial plant align with this? It does not.
Clearly, there is flagrant inconsistency between cannabis prohibition and the Principles and Articles. 
It is a Human Right to choose and to change, to preach and to practise, one's religion or belief. To use cannabis in the belief that it is medically and spiritually beneficial is in accordance with Article 9 of the European Convention:
1. "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her 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, practise, 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 morale, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Cannabis has been in use as a sacrament for thousands of years. Many people believe it is an essential part of their ritual. Others believe it is essential for their health. Either way, what Right has the law to stop them using cannabis? None!
The articles in both the Declaration and the Convention make quite clear the criteria by which the law can be invoked to prevent a person from exercising his or her Rights:
  • to protect the Rights of others,
  • to protect law and order,
  • to protect national security,
  • to protect public well being or morality.
Cannabis smoking does not threaten public safety or public order, health or morals, nor threaten the rights of others.
Clearly, on none of these grounds can the law be invoked against a cannabis user. Rather it is the prohibiting of cannabis that breaks the law.
The law banning cannabis effectively prevents these people from practising their beliefs. It negates a basic Human Right. It is inexcusable.
The enforcement of cannabis prohibition directly contravenes the following articles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30. The prohibition of cannabis is illegal.
An example of this illegality in practice is the treatment meted out in our country to religious sects. Natural cannabis is one of many plants that have been used for the inducing and stimulating of religious states of mind in the individual or, ceremoniously, the group. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, Jains, Rastafarians and many other religions have long made use of cannabis. They use it today; but usually in secrecy, for fear of arrest. Modern day New Age Travellers, the Universal Church of the Holy and Sacred Herb, The Church of the Universe, The Church of the Hemp Goddess - members of all these groups are arrested these days for smoking their sacrament. This is a direct consequence of the blanket prohibition of cannabis.
The affront to justice entailed in putting into practice our weird law relating to cannabis proves itself in the event, inevitably, to be at the same time an affront to sense. A blatant example: billions of pounds are spent each year providing ineffective medicines to people who claim, after all, to experience far more benefit from the smoking of cannabis. There are thousands suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, spinal injury, epilepsy, asthma, insomnia and stress-related illnesses who openly admit that they have needed to resort to cannabis to relieve their pain. And many of these, bizarrely, are taken to the courts!
After recommendations for an immediate change of law from the House of Lords, many doctors and many experts, and after a huge outcry from the general public, the Government has responded by allowing medical trials of organic cannabinoid extracts, declaring that if these trials are a success, then maybe in the future…!
In the meantime, literally millions of subjects are denied relief from pain, under threat of severe punishment. What sort of justice is that? What sort of sense?
We propose that the long known and many therapeutic values of cannabis be accepted immediately by the British Government and that cannabis in its natural form be made available without fear of prosecution to all whose health and well-being would benefit.
The legalising of cannabispossession, cultivation and supply would protect consumer's health: in effect it would act as a prophylactic against unknown and possibly noxious substances presently found in illegal cannabis on the streets of Britain.
Then again, how in the name of sense or of justice can one defend what our armaments, our industries, and our modes of transport do to the environment? For it is a question of justice, a matter of human rights. 
The environment is an essential aspect of ourselves, and we bequeath it to the future. It can be said, without exaggeration, that what we do to the world today may be unchangeable for millions of years. Nuclear waste materials have half-lives beyond the imagination. (A half-life is the time it takes a radioactively poisonous material to decay to half its potency. During the equivalent period following, it decays half again. That means that some of our waste will be dangerous for millions of years. This in the interest of fuel, of energy and of profit!)
The widespread cultivation of cannabis (to recapitulate) could halt and reverse much of the polluting activity that our society so stupidly and criminally engages in. Cannabis biomass could be made to provide all our fuel virtually cost-free (given that the THC-rich parts of the plant were used recreationally and medically, the remainder being a by-product). The dangerous synthetic industries could be put out of business. Large tracts of land on which other crops cannot be grown successfully could be reclaimed. The Greenhouse Effect could be hugely reduced, enabling nature to undo some of what has been done to the ozone layer. And so on…
We have asked why successive Governments have failed to take these facts into consideration and act upon them. We have received no satisfactory answer.
The Government's strategy in relation to cannabis is at once outrageous and ludicrous. Such a fuss about a plant, a remarkably safe plant! Such a pother about responsible people enjoying a 'high'!
They claim that cannabis is a dangerous drug. Claim it still, despite the evidence of their own studies!
Each year, for the crime of possessing this 'dangerous' substance, more and more people are arrested and taken through the courts. And the process costs the taxpayer billions of pounds.
But this figure - this tally - is of course dwarfed by the amount the multi-national corporations accumulate in producing synthetic alternatives to hemp.
Just look at the world: sick, starving, war-torn, polluted, crime-riddled and drug-addicted!


Tuesday, 24 April 2018



Ever wondered what it's like to spend time in prison for helping not harming - this book may give an insight into the harm done by the system and how it could be changed to bring out the goodness.

Now at Amazon as PAPERBACK and Kindle

Time for Cannabis - The Prison Years" is a true-life story of the journey through arrest, time on remand, trial and conviction and time served in 4 UK prisons.
This book is a valuable comparsion of prison regimes and personal experiences of the damage and the healing possible, and how the treatment of prisoners can affect them upon release.                                           
All this in prisons that claim their aim is to treat inmates with humanity.

 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 my time served, 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.