I think the "divide" in the cannabis campaign has come about more in the last ten years; previous to that, rightly or wrongly, there was much more unity under campaign groups such as the 1980's Legalise Cannabis Campaign and the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) 1999 to 2011. Many of the LCA political candidates in elections used cannabis primarily for medicinal benefits but all were united under a common banner and policy simply to remove cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act. After that unity and policy was removed when Reynolds became leader of the LCA and changed it to the Cannabis Law Reform party and all the trouble and division that caused, we saw groups such as UPA, NORML UK, UKCSC, CISTA formed each with their own agenda and tactics, then WTU. It seems to me that most of those groups have little activity. I agree with Clark 100% that people need to come together, unite, work together, but my own efforts to achieve that through my own leaderless Facebook group Alliance of Cannabis Hemp Activists (ACHA) has had little success. although so many say "we all want the same thing". I also agree with Clark in the sense that the fact that 15,000 can get cannabis on private prescription, if they can pay, is FOR THOSE PEOPLE 100% progress, although as Clarke says the quality may be lacking. But what about the MILLIONS of cannabis consumers that all get medicinal benefits whether they realise it or not (ie the preventative value) - what about their RIGHTS and FREEDOM OF CHOICE, what about NO VICTIM NO CRIME? I believe Clarke, Simpa and many others will agree so far, so what we going to do? I think anyone looking back over the years since the formation of the LCA in 1999, which are listed on my website ccguide.org, will see that in the days of the LCA, we had a VOICE, we had a platform, especially politically at election times (LCA contested over 80 elections, CLEAR contested one). CLARK, in my opinion, is the guy to unite us. I think a political party, whether or not it fights many elections, without any expectation of winning any, will give campaigners an opportunity to unite but also to gain a platform to speak for themselves, distribute fliers, ever get another Party Broadcast on TV. There will be opposition, as there was before, even from campaigners that support other parties; politics has changed but those that simply want to oust one party from power will still say vote Labour to get the Tories out, even though Labour under Starmer is very much a cannabis prohibitionist party. Also the law has changed so people with criminal records, even for cannabis, may not be able to contest elections - plus fundraising is not easy. I strongly believe that a cannabis-focussed political party with candidates with independent policies on other issues but united in effort under one banner IS THE WAY TO GO At 72 I feel passed the time I would wanto lead such a party but I would be willing to offer my previous experience and knowledge if it is ever needed.
Fighting for legal access and the right to grow one's own is a good cause to support, but fighting for the RIGHT for all people to take substances safely so long as they do not harm others, is a bigger and better cause in my opinion - that is the fight for recognition of the human rights "we" already have - however hard it may seem. Clark says he has done what he did despite being told he could not do it. I hope this extends when he is told or says that we need to unite under medicinal use to achieve the larger aim. Medicalisation is already here. Pharaceutics companies the farmers, they will make the profits, they will broaden their market place, improve access, lower prices, and bring about acceptance of use for medicinal purposes, but THEY will not fight for our Right to do whatever we chose in our private lives, practice our chosen beliefs, grow and share our own cannabis or buy it safely without prescription or permission, as adults. I have spoken with a lot of cannabis consumers who do not claim their use is medicinal and say that they feel left out of the push for medicinal access.
Drop the terms medical and recreational, use the term therapeutic - unite under that
I think you should consider that at the start you say prescription cannabis (which resulted from rescheduling) was 100% progressive but later you say that the Tory Government did that in a way they could control it BUT don't forget that it was a Labour Government that reclassified cannabis back to class B, increased the penalties and refused to reschedule and, under Starmer, support prohibition. I would ask: do you think rescehduling would have happened or been different under Labour. BUT I agree, Tories made the change under fear of losing the election due to publicity re Billy etc, which is why I believe political pressure such as the united pledge (which we used to have on line) such as "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE THAT SUPPORTS CANNABIS PROHIBITION"
I think the "divide" in the cannabis campaign has come about more in the last ten years; previous to that, rightly or wrongly, there was much more unity under campaign groups such as the 1980's Legalise Cannabis Campaign and the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) 1999 to 2011. Many of the LCA political candidates in elections used cannabis primarily for medicinal benefits but all were united under a common banner and policy simply to remove cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act. After that unity and policy was removed when Reynolds became leader of the LCA and changed it to the Cannabis Law Reform party and all the trouble and division that caused, we saw groups such as UPA, NORML UK, UKCSC, CISTA formed each with their own agenda and tactics, then WTU. It seems to me that most of those groups have little activity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Clark 100% that people need to come together, unite, work together, but my own efforts to achieve that through my own leaderless Facebook group Alliance of Cannabis Hemp Activists (ACHA) has had little success. although so many say "we all want the same thing".
I also agree with Clark in the sense that the fact that 15,000 can get cannabis on private prescription, if they can pay, is FOR THOSE PEOPLE 100% progress, although as Clarke says the quality may be lacking.
But what about the MILLIONS of cannabis consumers that all get medicinal benefits whether they realise it or not (ie the preventative value) - what about their RIGHTS and FREEDOM OF CHOICE, what about NO VICTIM NO CRIME?
I believe Clarke, Simpa and many others will agree so far, so what we going to do?
I think anyone looking back over the years since the formation of the LCA in 1999, which are listed on my website ccguide.org, will see that in the days of the LCA, we had a VOICE, we had a platform, especially politically at election times (LCA contested over 80 elections, CLEAR contested one).
CLARK, in my opinion, is the guy to unite us. I think a political party, whether or not it fights many elections, without any expectation of winning any, will give campaigners an opportunity to unite but also to gain a platform to speak for themselves, distribute fliers, ever get another Party Broadcast on TV.
There will be opposition, as there was before, even from campaigners that support other parties; politics has changed but those that simply want to oust one party from power will still say vote Labour to get the Tories out, even though Labour under Starmer is very much a cannabis prohibitionist party. Also the law has changed so people with criminal records, even for cannabis, may not be able to contest elections - plus fundraising is not easy.
I strongly believe that a cannabis-focussed political party with candidates with independent policies on other issues but united in effort under one banner IS THE WAY TO GO
At 72 I feel passed the time I would wanto lead such a party but I would be willing to offer my previous experience and knowledge if it is ever needed.
Fighting for legal access and the right to grow one's own is a good cause to support, but fighting for the RIGHT for all people to take substances safely so long as they do not harm others, is a bigger and better cause in my opinion - that is the fight for recognition of the human rights "we" already have - however hard it may seem. Clark says he has done what he did despite being told he could not do it. I hope this extends when he is told or says that we need to unite under medicinal use to achieve the larger aim. Medicalisation is already here. Pharaceutics companies the farmers, they will make the profits, they will broaden their market place, improve access, lower prices, and bring about acceptance of use for medicinal purposes, but THEY will not fight for our Right to do whatever we chose in our private lives, practice our chosen beliefs, grow and share our own cannabis or buy it safely without prescription or permission, as adults. I have spoken with a lot of cannabis consumers who do not claim their use is medicinal and say that they feel left out of the push for medicinal access.
ReplyDeleteDrop the terms medical and recreational, use the term therapeutic - unite under that
I think you should consider that at the start you say prescription cannabis (which resulted from rescheduling) was 100% progressive but later you say that the Tory Government did that in a way they could control it BUT don't forget that it was a Labour Government that reclassified cannabis back to class B, increased the penalties and refused to reschedule and, under Starmer, support prohibition. I would ask: do you think rescehduling would have happened or been different under Labour. BUT I agree, Tories made the change under fear of losing the election due to publicity re Billy etc, which is why I believe political pressure such as the united pledge (which we used to have on line) such as "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE THAT SUPPORTS CANNABIS PROHIBITION"
ReplyDelete