Dr Gary Potter issues an apology on the Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium Website

Dr Gary Potter of London South Bank University has issued an apology to UKCIA and CLEAR on the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium website . *(see note below)

Over a year ago now in February 2012 I wrote an entry on this blog about a group of people attacking the CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform campaign and in particular its leader, Peter Reynolds (“Small minds discuss people” – read it here). Little did I realise a year ago quite how far they would take this and just how much time and effort they would spend in trying to undermine the work of CLEAR. It isn’t an understatement to say these people have been obsessive in their efforts.

It is worth mentioning in passing that most of these people are well known to me, some in person and some via forums and e-mail. They are well known to me as being individuals almost constantly at war with each other, hurling insults around and generally disrupting forums, opposing initiatives and discouraging new activists. They have been at each others throats for years. It is only with the advent of CLEAR and the involvement of Peter Reynolds – a campaigner who actually gets out there and does stuff – that these people have come together in total unity to face what they see as the common enemy of stoner kind. It’s almost as if history had been re-written.

Over the past year the same small group of people – it’s no more than a dozen or so – have been following every campaign move CLEAR has been making and have done their level best to undermine it.  For example, CLEAR encourages people to write to the media in responce to bad (or on occasion good) reports about cannabis; the so-called “Comment Warrior” campaign. Time and time again these people have added their own comments which not only undermine the anti cannabis prohibition message we were trying to make, but also claiming how unpopular CLEAR has become and how disreputable Peter Reynolds is. When Peter appeared on radio broadcasts, which he has done a fair bit of this year, the same people would phone in to say how much cannabis users opposed the efforts of CLEAR. During the Corby election campaign, they posted comments to the youtube election video claiming Peter Reynolds was drunk and more besides.

These people are examples of what is generally known as the “scene police”. Anyone who has ever been involved with sub cultures will know this term; the people who define what you must do, say and think in order to be a proper punk or a goth for example. In this case these individuals think their role is to uphold the values of the “cannabis community” and they have been doing it with the zeal of a born again Christian who’s just seen the light and converted to Islam.

One of the campaigns these people engaged in was to attack CLEAR and UKCIA after the two websites began promoting a study by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium (GCCRC), a group of academics from a dozen or so institutions around the world looking into cannabis cultivation. UKCIA has a proud tradition of supporting research into cannabis and cannabis use by advertising studies looking for subjects to take part and CLEAR is also keen to help in this way. So it was that both sites carried a recruiting advert for the GCCRC study and I announced it on UKCIA in this blog.

Within a matter of days the usual people had flooded the GCCRC forum with anti CLEAR and even anti UKCIA comments. The academic in the UK, Dr Gary Potter, entered into what he thought were private discussions with one of them and believed everything he was told. This resulted in what was in my opinion a spectacularly stupid blog from him disowning UKCIA and CLEAR published on the GCCRC site. It was taken down within hours, but by that time the blog post was spread widely around Facebook and other sites.

It is therefore with some satisfaction that following legal action we can today announce the apology written by Dr Gary Potter and published on their website, which you can read in full here (see note below) . In the apology Dr Potter accepts that the comments posted on the blog from these people were

derogatory and provided no evidence in respect of the allegations made against Mr Reynolds, Mr Williams, CLEAR and UKCIA.

The full nature of the settlement with Dr Potter and the GCCRC of course remains confidential, but suffice to say Peter Reynolds and myself are quite content with it. What I will say is we undertook this legal battle ourselves, with help from supporters who gave legal advice. In doing so we dealt with a well funded professional legal firm looking after the interests of the GCCRS, the institutions and their employees. I’ve never done anything like that before,  ideally will never do so again and I was pleased to reach the settlement agreed on. Whilst Dr Gary Potter was unwittingly dragged into all this the winning of this apology can be seen as the first stage in the fightback against the morons who have been attacking us over the past year.. One thing is for certain, although it didn’t cost us a penny, someone had to pick up what was certainly a sizable tab from the legal firm.

What drives these people to do this disruption campaign? Cannabis is known for its ability to help people dream fantastic dreams and this is a good thing when musicians use it to compose or writers use it to hatch plots and so on, but some of these guys are genuinely ill people who spend all their lives smoking vast amounts of cannabis “medicinally” while building fantasy networks on facebook, imagining themselves to be warriors in the front line of cannabis law reform activism. One of their number is seemingly just bitter and holding a deep and loathing grudge and one of them is a very rich person who has made a lot of money selling so-called “legal highs” including SCRAs, the fake cannabis products like Spice and K2.

For the past year they have been attacking Peter Reynolds and CLEAR, but over the past few weeks I have been on the receiving end of these peoples bile with a series of offensive anonymous Tor mail threats and a ludicrous (also anonymous) complaint to my employers to the effect that I was a “cokehead”. It was, of course, treated with the contempt it deserved by my employers and perhaps demonstrated that single minded and obsessed as these people are, the are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

CLEAR cannabis law reform and the UKCIA site have only one interest; the cause of cannabis law reform. We have been and remain focused on the fight against prohibition, a policy which has blighted so many people’s lives and caused too much suffering for too long. These people fighting CLEAR and UKCIA claim to want the same thing, in all honesty I don’t believe they do.

See also Peter Reynold’s blog


Update June 2013

The original headline to this article gave the impression the apology was made by the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium, whereas it was made by Dr Gary Potter personally, I am happy to make that clear. I have also amended the first paragraph of the article for the same reason.

*Note:  Dr Gary Potter’s apology has been removed from the Global Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium website, a move which is compatible with our settlement. The full statement, which is a matter of public record, can be seen below.

The full text of Dr Gary Potter’s apology

On the 28 November 2012 and 29 November 2012 in response to various third party postings on the discussion forum on the GCCRC website I made certain comments about Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR},  Peter Reynolds, UKCIA, and Derek Williams. The third party postings I was responding to were derogatory and  provided no evidence in respect of the allegations made  against Mr Reynolds, Mr Williams, CLEAR and UKCIA. As such my comments  were ill-considered and  I unreservedly apologise for making them.

I wish to make it clear that the GCCRC is not affiliated with, nor does it support nor oppose  any particular individual or group in the cannabis law reform movement or otherwise. Its purpose is to support the carrying out of important research, and all personal information collected in the course of that research is kept strictly confidential and is never shared with third parties. I would ask that in the  future individuals do not use the GCCRC site to make  public defamatory comments  about  any third party, and in the alternative if they have legitimate concerns these should be raised by email to the GCCRC using the email functionality on the GCCRC website.


UKCIA is a cannabis law reform site dedicated to ending the prohibition of cannabis. As an illegal drug, cannabis is not a controlled substance - it varies greatly in strength and purity, it's sold by unaccountable people from unknown venues with no over sight by the authorities. There is no recourse to the law for users and the most vulnerable are therefore placed at the greatest risk. There can be no measures such as age limits on sales and no way to properly monitor or study the trade, let alone introduce proper regulation. Cannabis must be legalised, as an illegal substance it is very dangerous to the users and society at large.

26 thoughts on “Dr Gary Potter issues an apology on the Cannabis Cultivation Research Consortium Website

  1. From what I can see,this is just Reynolds bringing disrepute upon the cannabis anti prohibition agenda yet again. What does this do to forward the cause?It is mindless and petty and ill be-fitting of a so-called political party leader. I only hope whats left of Clears funds aren’t funding this evident self righteous debacle…I thought Clear was a serious campaign,I was obviously mistaken.

  2. In all the time this poo has been going on i have: been arrested, charged, sent to prison, released, tag removed, got a job, split from my partner, got back with my partner, seen a friend get pregnant and have the baby, nearly mastered the arts of sugar-craft, written a forty thousand word piece about cannabis law reform, amassed a collection of letters from the home office, missed the avengers in the cinema, discovered pirate bay and mp3, watched those around me age over well over a year, built the basis of a possible business…..what have these people done apart from create negativity? please let this be the end

  3. @ Albert Coughman – clearly you either haven’t read my account of what’s been happening or you chose to not believe it. Whichever it is, you are wrong. Anyway, not a penny was spent on this, but a great deal has been gained as a result.

    @ Andrew Cox, indeed, I share your hope that this will indeed be the end,it’s been truly pathetic.

  4. I have read your account and Peter’s account, and tbh I think its disgraceful and a blight on the reforn lobby Do you think people like Ian Duncan Smith sue when called a nazi? As happens almost daily in some tabloid rags? If a so called political leader cannot rise above derision,then he/she does not deserve to be a leader of any kind.This has split the community for far too long,yet all I see is you and Reynolds prolonging this division..As I said earlier I actually thought this was a serious campaign,when in reality it is a one man side show…very sad indeed.

  5. Derek,

    You seem to be under the illusion that people are ignorant and uninformed about the situation with Reynolds and CLEAR. You also seem to believe that CLEAR’s consistent policy of threats and censorship have successfully masked the truth.

    So please continue with the charade Derek. Keep writing blog posts like this. And enjoy your short-lived victory while you can. I’m going to be waiting with interest for the court cases to appear before a judge.

    People like you and Reynolds are the one reason why I stopped being involved with the cannabis legalisation movement. Embarrassing jokes the lot of you.

  6. Nobody who has had to witness this year of shameful conduct by these so-called “activists” can ever again believe that they are or were ever a part of the cannabis community.Sending anonymous emails to Dereks employers,Trying to attack Peter via his elderly mother,Sending hate mail to my son (and all his facebook friends) who has downs syndrome and sending E-mails to the police claiming CLEAR executives were trying to purchase coke from them.
    This is what they will be remembered for.
    I am proud of the CLEAR executive and the members for what we have achieved this year in spite of these nasty bastards attempts to divert us from our cause

  7. “The full nature of the settlement with Dr Potter and the GCCRC of course remains confidential, but suffice to say Peter Reynolds and myself are quite content with it. What I will say is we undertook this legal battle ourselves, with help from supporters who gave legal advice. ”

    My translation: We collaborated together to write bullying and threatening letters to Dr Potter’s university demanding for an apology. Reynolds is an expert at writing threatening letters, and in this instance the university caved in. The settlement remains confidential because the apology is all that Reynolds demanded and obtained and that no money changed hands. A simple apology was all it took to get the madman Reynolds off of the backs of the university.

    My other prediction: Both yourself, Reynolds and Dr Potter’s university will be shamed and humiliated when the current defamation cases are ruled upon.

    Tick tock

  8. >>Rastachewie…Do you really believe that Derek and Peter are “bullying” universities ? Can you seriously believe that ? Explain to us exactly how Derek and Dr Potters university will be shamed and humiliated by any judgement which they are not involved in.

  9. @Maharg

    Many of Peters threatening letters are already in the public domain and CLeaRly exposes how he operates. He’s a bully.

    The shame and humiliation will come to everyone who has defended Peter when he loses in the courts.

  10. @ Albert Coughman You are welcome to your view which is at best ill informed.

    @Rastachewi your comments are delusional and typical of the people who have been attacking us – and I may say rather typical of one person in particular.

  11. The problem I see here is that you appear are using the fact that some in the community have undoubtedly behaved very badly towards you and Peter, to cover up the fact that Peter has himself behaved very badly himself.

    There is a basic confusion here; the fact that some of the accusations levelled against him are not true does not mean all the accusations are not true, and the fact that some people have responded otr behaved badly towards him does not mean all complaints against him are unjustified. He is undisputably on the record saying unquestionably offensive things, and behaving in an unprofessional manner. He has inflamed the various conflicts with his often childish response to the various attacks – (whether they were justified of not). A more considered, conciliatory and mature approach at the outset of the ‘troubles’ would have prevented much of the nastiness and damage to CLEAR and the movement thats followed. There was no inevitiability to it – he has to sholder the responsibility Im afraid.

    You may be too involved to have any perspective on this now, but his actions began all of this and have also created the environment in which the situation has escalated. In that context I think he is ultimately the only person to pin the blame on (I could use a drug war analogy regards the root of the problems vs symptoms).

    Yes there is internal bickering in every movement but I dont see anything this ridiculous happening to any one else in this cause or any other. Why do you think that is? The refusal to take any blame, learn or modify behaviour in response to legitimate critique will, sadly, be the undoing of the organisation.

  12. This is a typical politicians tactic, to accuse others of what you are guilty of yourselves, to distract attention.

    Reynolds writes offensive blogs, attacks and censors his critics and is now suing people left right and centre, including a university academic, a few disabled people and an old age pensioner. Yet they are trying to play the victim card … pull the other one!

    The attacks posted CLEAR’s web site, PR’s own blog and UKCIA really are pathetic and I think most people will see through them for what they are.

    The author of this blog is a deluded fool who has a long history of disruption in the cannabis movement. I find it funny the toxic Reynolds is the only person who is prepared to work with him … speaks volumes.

  13. Hardly ill informed,just because I disagree with you , I actually took time out to read your defensive pieces regarding Peter and Clear, and Reynolds’ blog,but have held my tongue hoping this would blow over. But tbh from what I have read, there has been an element of bigotry in his “writings”. Which I can see why some people have taken issue with some of his statements and opinions. But I have also read some pretty damning material from Peter’s accusers, and if you and he think everyone will capitulate to Reynolds claims of defamation like that idiot Potter did then IMO,you and Peter will be left with egg on your faces..Where would this leave Clear if this happened? It would be a laughing stock and an embarrassment.What credibility does this bring to the movement????

  14. @ Andy – “The author of this blog is a deluded fool who has a long history of disruption in the cannabis movement”.

    Hmmm. Yes well, who appointed you as some kind of arbiter Andy? The “cannabis movement” of which you speak has what policies exactly? When were they adopted? You do seem to fit what I described as “the scene police” – the enforcer of the unwritten laws to which all cannabis law reform activists must conform.

    @weedol – thanks for a considered reply. Yes I do accept that especially in the early days Peter did write a few ill considered comments, but they were few and came as a result of events which up to that point he hadn’t been sharing with the rest of us. The attacks on him have been vile and sustained, up to and including a dedicated “hate” website.

    You wrote

    “the fact that some people have responded or behaved badly towards him does not mean all complaints against him are unjustified.”

    Of course not, but there has been a group of people – which included the people he was rude about – who have run this sustained attack against him. You are wrong to say the ill considered responces started all this, they were as a reaction to the attacks that were already happening. Yes, I have been close to it and as a result I’ve seen what was done at first hand.

    CLEAR hasn’t been that badly hurt by all this actually, in fact the hate campaign has been very ineffective in the wider world. It has distracted us from doing what we wanted to do with the campaign though, but membership has continued to grow as we’ve entered our second year. Remember, CLEAR took over from the LCA which had about 70 paid up members, we have well over 1000 now.

    This sort of thing has happened to others over the years, although not to this extent. This “movement” as Andy called it has been riven with disputes and character battles for much of the past 10 years if not longer.

    @ Albert Coughman From what you write you are not some random person who has just read this blog and made a considered judgement. You write

    “if you and he think everyone will capitulate to Reynolds claims of defamation like that idiot Potter did”

    That “idiot Potter” did not “capitulate”. We presented the evidence and won the case. I was involved in that because I had been dragged into it by the idiots who disrupted our efforts. I am not involved in any other legal cases underway but I await the result with great interest.

    I see from your last comment that you’re another member of the scene police enforcing the pride of the movement. Sad.

  15. I used to be a full supporter of CLEAR and I was more than happy to spread the word of a cause that I considered to be one of the leading cannabis rights movements in the UK, telling anyone I could get to listen about why it was important to be involved in a movement such as CLEAR and how every single member counted.

    My support quickly disappeared when I stumbled across some of Reynolds personal views. I don’t understand how a serious campaign can be run by someone who has proved himself to be a bigot. His posts not only offended me, but also a large number of people I told about CLEAR. Reynolds is more than welcome to hold whatever views he likes, but when you’re supposed to be a leader of a political and serious campaign, you should be keeping such views to yourself. I have personally witnessed various attacks on a range of people for their lifestyle or beliefs and quite frankly, it gives CLEAR a bad name, which in turn gives the movement he is supporting a bad name too. Whether you like it or not, he has damaged the credibility of CLEAR, and thus making the people he has attacked search for another solution.

    I don’t consider myself to be involved in the “scene police”, all I wanted to do was support a cause I believed strongly in and help the reformation of cannabis laws in the UK become a reality. But I do firmly believe that singling out certain groups for whatever personal reasons is not the way to go about it. If there is a divide in the cannabis community, I can’t help but feel that Reynolds comments and relation to CLEAR has made the divide even stronger. Some of Reynolds previous comments have made would be supporters feel unwelcome, and thus they look for an alternative campaign. Personally, I feel that the only way for CLEAR to move forward is for Reynolds to step down, and I do feel that if he is in fact dedicated to the movement he must surely see that himself. I’m not arguing that he has done some good work over the years, but he has also done a fair deal of damage.

  16. “Cannabis is known for its ability to help people dream fantastic dreams”

    Cannabis suppresses REM sleep, just FYI.

  17. @ weedom – ah yes, a former supporter who became outraged by Peter Reynold’s opinions on issues unrelated to cannabis law reform.

    You sir, are indeed the scene police and your post is no more than an attempt to justify a campaign of vicious disruption and personal vilification.

    CLEAR (and UKCIA) have no views on anything other than cannabis law reform and anyone who supports that single objective is welcome, there are no boxes to tick to ensure political correctness on any other issue.

    All that matters to me is how much work you’re willing to do to support the cause and few over the past year has done as much as Peter Reynolds has.

    By all means debate issues with individuals – and Peter Reynolds blog is open to anyone who can express views without being offensive. But those views and your opinion of them are of no interest to me or to CLEAR.

    Anyway, that is all irrelevant. If you don’t want to support CLEAR that’s fine by me, don’t. Go find another group that fits your personal take on the world. Do no disrupt what we do and do not threaten those of us who don’t share your wider take on the world.

  18. @ Sert – you’re using a very narrow definition of the word “dream” I think, it is possible to dream when you’re awake you know, it’s called creativity.

    “cannabis is well known for its ability to allow people to think fantastic thoughts”


  19. @UKCIA he’s not using a narrow definition of the word dream, if anything he’s spot on and you’re being pedantic.

    Now…. a little about me. First off, I’m not Sert (whoever the fuck that is). I am, however, someone that wishes cannabis was legal.

    Unfortunately all the evidence available (pictures of twitter feeds, actual scans of court documents etc) suggest that all of the actual accusations against mr. Reynolds are true, a quick google search will back this up – there are plenty of examples of draconian, unprovoked, facist (bordering on nazi) censorship of anyone that even slightly disagrees, or in many cases (that I have witnessed first hand as a now ex-“liker” of Clear on all its social media), borderline nazi censorship of people that were 100% agreeing with him, but he just apparently couldnt read at all.

    Why continue to defend a bigot that clearly does harm to the cause? ANYONE even SLIGHTLY tainted with the accusations of “malicious litigation” and CLEAR evidence of censorship shouldn’t be in charge of anything.

  20. @UKCIA – Thanks for the confirmation that leaving groups like CLEAR and those associated with CLEAR was a good decision. I was merely pointing out the reasons why there is such a backlash against CLEAR. If you are seriously that deluded that you think I should support a campaign run by a bigoted, racist homophobe like Peter Reynolds when there are alternative, non-bias, hate free and above all organisations that welcome EVERYBODY out there then you are surely mistaken.

    Your justification to Reynolds outburts are actually laughable, and you have made no attempt what so ever to address any of the issues in my post, rather than just telling me what I am and what my views are. I can now see why you, Peter and CLEAR get on so well together.

    Oh, and just to clarify, I don’t need to “justify a campaign of vicious disruption and personal vilification” against Peter. He does an excellent job of that himself.

  21. @ “not sert” – Your first comment illustrates a lot about you. You wrote about dreams meaning what happens in the period of REM when asleep

    “he’s not using a narrow definition of the word dream, if anything he’s spot on and you’re being pedantic”

    You see one narrow definition of a word and refuse to accept that it can have many meanings. Oh you are so wrong. “Dreaming” can also mean:

    A state of abstraction; a trance, a wild fancy or hope or a condition or achievement that is longed for; an aspiration or to regard something as feasible or practical; to conceive of or imagine.

    This is the sort of dreaming cannabis can be really good for if you use it constructively, it has nothing to do with REM or sleep. It is in in that sense cannabis users can indeed have fantastic dreams.

    You are showing narrow, ridged thinking in your inability to see a wider description, something incidentally the prohibition lobby often claims heavy cannabis can cause – are you providing evidence they are correct on this one?

    Thing is this ability to dream fantastic dreams can turn bad if you use it to feed on bad thoughts. You talk of all this evidence – have you read it all? Have you really? Have you really elevated your hatred of one person to that level of obsession? I think you probably have.

    The reason we won the case was simple, we showed them your “evidence”.

    @ Weedomn, fine, you want nothing to do with us – that’s good by me. Please close the door on the way out.

  22. @ UKCIA, no, but a VERY nice attempt at a straw man fallacy by yourself there, way to put words in a persons mouth.

    I did not write about dreams meaning what happens in the period of REM sleep, Sert did. and he was spot on. Your definition, while correct, is being pedantic, as it is not THE definition that… well, apparently anyone other than you goes on.
    Thus your spending three paragraphs on that was a complete waste of your time as it proved to me and everyone reading you cant actually debate anything to save your life and will resort to attempting to make the PERSON look bad rather than their points… much like peter reynolds does. The simple fact is that every single thing you listed as the alternative definition of a dream, has a MUCH MORE relevant primary definition, for example:

    “A state of abstraction” = Dizzy, confused, airheaded, lost in thought, daydreaming – but not dreaming itself. for “dream” to mean “a state of abstraction” you have to take it as an adjective rather than an adverb. It is quite clear that we were ALL using it as an adverb apart from you, who tried to use a VERY VERY Minor and actually technically incorrect (on your part) “glitch” of the english language to try and score some internet argument points. You ought to be ashamed, both for yourself and your entire side as you’re making them look bad.

    Anyway, i’m being far from narrow minded, I’m pointing out how all the people calling YOU so are correct and that you arent, and what kind of ridiculous question is that? YOU want to be “that guy” who PROVES something the cannabis prohibition team is saying? Im sorry, I thought you were pro-legalisation, OBVIOUSLY NOT.

    Anyway, yes. I have read the evidence. As a neutral third party, I decided it best to get the whole picture before leaping in, and that’s my definition of “A sensible person who isnt a complete fuck tard, or jerkoff” (Ie: someone that gets the whole picture before opening their mouth).

    You call me obsessed… with what? You’re a site moderator. Look up my IP, this is the second time i’ve ever been on your site, the first was yesterday to debunk the bullshit you’re spewing, the second was today.

    I will be forwarding the link to this to everyone I know and they will see how you treat an upstanding member of the cannabis activism community who hasnt ever got involed in the argument before, let alone shown ANY indications of “obsession” (another baseless accusation from yourself, one I would retract before I get less civil with my wording. Quite frankly, to extend the metaphor of an internet argument to sex, you just got hardcore buttfucked, dude.)

    -Not Sert.

    ps: further straw man attacks will be dealt with just as efficiently. I highly suggest you think VERY carefully before replying as immaturely and childishly again, because you’re only making yourself look VERRY bad.

  23. also, seeing as your site is backwards and I cant edit my post, I’d like to make it clear I meant VERB not ADVERB when referring to how all of us except for UKCIA were referring to the word “dreaming”….
    I know everyone reading knew what I meant, but cant let this go without an edit, clearly UKCIA is the kind of childish goon who would attack me for having two letters out of place in my typing than actually even think about any of the points I raised that have something to do with the actual argument

    Not sert

  24. @ Not Sert – if the writing above is anything like your personality i would be ashamed to know you. Go on, dissect that sentence show me your intellectual superiority, list the flawed arguments i have made, watch as i cry myself to sleep after your amazing genius putdowns, i have this image in my head of you taking an hour to make a cup of tea as you debate furiously about the whole process. This whole thing is the same people saying the same things over and over and over and over, it is embarrassing and boring/tedious/tiring, thousands and thousands and thousands of people know what you know and disagree, is that hard to believe/accept. You think that, someone else thinks this…it is as simple as that…please please please please please just stop it. please. I lost everything and my life was pretty much destroyed by the laws i so disagree with and i have to come on sites like this to read this, go and spend some time in prison and see where your smart arse gets you

  25. @ Andrew Cox – you beat me to it. What got me from all that spiel was this:

    Not Sert wrote “as it is not THE definition that… well, apparently anyone other than you goes on.”

    Everyone other than me uses one definition of the word “dream”, he really believes that. Dream on Not Sert.

    Notice not one comment above has criticised what UKCIA or CLEAR is doing to promote cannabis law reform, it’s all this stupid child like attack on a personality.

  26. “Not Sert” (well chosen name, bro) asked: “Why continue to defend a bigot that clearly does harm to the cause?”

    I have not investigated Peter Reynolds views unrelated to cannabis law reform (which is the cause, yes?) but say that you are right and that because of Peter Reynolds bigotry he is declared unfit to lead the CLEAR campaign and resigns. What then? Can Albert do Peters job better? Can Rosie? Andy? weedom? Rastachewie? Are anyone of you actually furthering the cause by any constructive means?

    CLEAR has one ultimate goal and all of you who agree with that goal can contribute to the furthering of it without having to have anything at all to do with Peter. Have anyone of you done anything like the work Peter does?

    I’m gonna suggest that when you have the same engagement and drive that Peter has to reach the goal of cannabis law reform and you have done more to further the cause than he has, THEN and only then can you start a flame war with him regarding his bigotry. Until then, Peter’s resignation is not in your interest.

    I am disgusted by the respect and reverence Peter offered Thatcher in his blog but not only is it irrelevant to cannabis law reform, I know I can’t do better work than Peter already does on cannabis law reform so I have nothing at all to gain by choosing to be offended.

    You guys remind me of the Scottish nationalists who have decided to vote against Scottish independence in the referendum next October because of their personal dislike of Alex Salmon. I don’t like Salmon either but the question of independence is much larger than one person, just like the question of law reform.

Comments are closed.