LCA RIP – the future is, apparently, CLEAR

What has happened with the Legalise Cannabis Alliance over the past couple of months can only be described as a coup – in many ways a welcome coup, but a coup non the less.

This blog first reported something was brewing back in January

Peter Reynolds is a new name on the law reform scene; he first came to prominence last September when the confusion over the legality of importing medical cannabis from Holland occurred (Peter Reynolds blog). From this he went on to create the British Medical Cannabis Register (BMCR) which caused much bad feeling and has been covered in this blog at some length (here). Peter has been promoting himself as a long term cannabis campaigner for a few months now with varying degrees of success on different forums. He is a person of uncompromising opinions with a very strong personality which is both an advantage and a disadvantage.

The LCA had existed for 11 years and yet within a couple of months of joining, by the middle of February, Peter had managed not only to change the constitution of the LCA but also to get himself elected as leader. The speed it all happened was breathtaking, but the changes were only just beginning. Peter announced the new campaign would be very different to the old LCA, promoting the idea of control and regulation of the commercial trade with an image people could take seriously. As I wrote in February

All this is exciting stuff and if it comes off it will be a real game changer. There is a lot of support out there for cannabis law reform – not for “free the weed” but for a properly controlled and regulated trade which actually protects the people at risk. So the proposed changes are not only welcome, but will be actively supported by this site as we at last seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

Things ticked along throughout March and it began to look as if the pace of change was slacking, but wheels were turning and over the past few days the new direction for the campaign was made public. Gone is “Legalise cannabis” and in it’s place is the term UKCIA has always  used – “Cannabis law reform”. The whole “LCA” brand is about to be buried and the new identity launched. From now on the name is “CLEAR” – cannabis law reform.

It’s fair to say there is a lot of bad feeling from some of the “old guard” of the LCA, who really can’t understand why it was necessary to take over the old campaign and then effectively kill it off by launching something totally new and utterly different. This is perhaps understandable but it is wrong, the old LCA has to die; it wasn’t only ineffective but was actually harmful to the cannabis law reform effort. The people involved in the old campaign  were sincere  but they were also badly out of touch with what was needed and seemed oblivious to the harm the awful image they projected did to the cause. In recent days Peter has dealt with complaints from the old guard in a quite ruthless manner which although probably effective is worrying if not checked.  It is certainly true that a focused and disciplined campaign requires strong leadership and at the moment he has a lot of good will from many people who desperately want to see the sort of reforms he’s promising, but it would be more than a pity if he allowed his formidable temper to undermine the good work he has done so far.

So what can we look forward to with the new campaign? On his blog Peter described the aims of CLEAR

1. To end the prohibition of cannabis.
2. To promote as a matter of urgency and compassion the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors.
3. To introduce a system of regulation for the production and supply of cannabis based on facts and evidence.
4. To encourage the production and use of industrial hemp.
5. To educate and inform about the uses and benefits of cannabis.

Of course, exactly what this means in practice remains to be seen, but it’s certainly on the right road. The “spearhead” for the campaign as Peter describes it is to be the medical use of cannabis.

We seek an end to prohibition for everyone but we demand immediate provision for those who need cannabis as medicine.  It is an obscene and evil shame on our nation that so many who suffer are in fear of arrest and prison for using a medicine that transforms their lives.

This is an issue which has divided law reform campaigners for a long time, as well as being used by the prohibition lobby as a reason to block medical use. By openly  describing the medical issue as a “spearhead” for the wider campaign Peter is treading  a dangerous path, running the risk of proving the prohibitionists claim that the medical argument is no more than a “front” for “freeing the weed”.  He is right though to identify medical use as a real urgent issue which deserves to be highlighted, the fact that a great many people are forced to suffer rather than use a plant with many known benefits is inhuman – denying a person a medicine is rightly regarded as a form of torture by most right thinking people.

It is of course true that the medical use of cannabis is only prohibited because the recreational use is prohibited. If recreational use were to be allowed – even if under the most stringent and repressive of conditions – medical use would immediately become possible. The two aspects of cannabis law reform are not really separate issues, although in many ways they are vastly different.

Along with the leadership election it was also decided to re-register the campaign as a political party in order to stand in elections. The idea isn’t to actually get elected, but to use the political process as a vehicle for getting the message out. This might work, it didn’t before though and runs the very real risk of showing there is no support for the aims of the campaign simply by not getting a substantial vote and being ranked with the “looney” parties. If this tactic is going to be of any worth and not actually damage the wider effort CLEAR will have to get reasonable levels of support in the ballot box. If the referendum due in a couple of weeks leads to a change in the way we vote to AV  it might be possible, but if the result is for no change standing for election would seem a very unwise campaign tactic.

But all such concerns are for tomorrow, for now we have the creation of a new cannabis law reform campaign and one which is showing signs of being a grown up and mature campaign. UKCIA will be following developments with great interest and more than a little enthusiasm.

The new website will be launched soon, we wish it well




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.

46 thoughts on “LCA RIP – the future is, apparently, CLEAR

  1. All the best to CLEAR, I think the movement has direction now. I am pleased that medical use is the first issue to be followed, it is abnormally cruel to deny sufferers of MS, cancer, chronic pain and more effective treatment with barely any side effects.

    Keep striving Peter, you are fighting the good fight and you have evidence and morality on your side. I hope to see Peter in every article and tv show about cannabis in the future, we need a voice to point out the ridiculous situation of cannabis prohibition.

  2. I suspect “I’ve just seen this” actually means “I’ve just written this” in the post above. Why pretend otherwise?

  3. Yes, I suspect that’s true Sam.

    As this person has (as far as I can tell fairly) quoted from this blog, I see no reason to censor the comment.

    That said I am aware of the bad feeling from “the old guard” of the LCA and I mentioned it in the post above.

    It’s very sad if something like this runs the risk of undermining the new campaign, the aims of which I support strongly.

  4. Hi Derek, I’ve just been checking through that linked blog and was just wondering if you can shed any more light on what’s going on with that? Some of the info provided there really doesn’t make for pleasant reading. Not being a member of uk420 this is pretty much the only info I’ve got to go on with regards to this issue thats been raised. If Reynolds is somewhat ascerbic and has just got some peoples backs up with his delivery I can pretty much ignore it. However if the allegations of him pathologically lying are true I’m really not sure I can comfortably support the guy. Although the way it’s been presented here (as Sam pointed out) is somewhat suspect?
    Just to be clear (hehe), from what I understand so far I do support the ideas Peter’s proposing and he’s certainly got a decent selection of supporters, I’m just a little wary given what I’ve read there. Considering the amount of push that’s needed from us on this side of the reform debate, anything that could be used against us is really not helpful.

  5. Mr Tomtom,

    I mean really!? is that the best you could produce? Even if the things you are saying are true the way you present them makes them seem like lies!

    If you are, as some people here suspect, a member of the LCA ‘old guard’ and the blog you link to is your idea of an effective campaign no wonder the LCA has been so ineffective for so long.

  6. Hi Dragon

    No, no idea who is behind this PR blog. It’s fair to say that Peter has been a controversial person since he burst onto the scene a few months ago, apparently coming from nowhere and has had what can only be described as a meteoric rise, treading on more than a few toes in the process.

    The changes at the LCA were really needed and long overdue. Perhaps it takes someone like Peter to make this sort of thing happen?

  7. I’m not saying that these changes weren’t needed or anything just a little worried that if it’s proven that Peter is not the man we think he is these very changes could be the baby that is thrown out with the bathwater. If the person making the allegations is just a disgruntled “old guard” then maybe it’s nothing. If not however it could be that this is just one more painted target for the prohibitionists to aim at.
    I hope these allegations are false and, as I said previously, it does seem likely thats the case. If not we could all be setting ourselves up for a huge fall.

  8. I’m still a relative young ‘un compared to some of the grizzled old campaigners, but I’ve kept an eye out for some time, at least a few years and I have to say the first I heard of the LCA was when Peter launched his campaign to rebrand and reignite it.

    As far as I can tell from that blog it seems to be a bit of petty sniping and nothing to get too worked up about. From what I’ve seen of his material Peter certainly has a…shall we say uncompromising style, and maybe that’s what we need. One thing is for sure, and that’s that we need an Ethan Nadelmann type figure. Somebody eloquent, knowledgeable, able to call prohibitionists on their bullshit and most importantly, VISIBLE.

  9. I’m hugely flattered by it actually. I must be making an impact for someone to go to so much time and trouble!

    Quite genuinely, I feel inspired by it. It give me a real sense that I am making progress.

    Derek has certainly asked some questions about me in the past but let me be CLEAR, I’m perfectly ready to answer any question about me that anyone thinks remains unanswered – but not to some internet troll, grovelling in anonymity.

    Anything that anyone wants to know, just ask me on Facebook, at or email me at

    I have nothing to hide. My goal is to end the prohibition of cannabis and that’s what I’m focused on.

  10. Hi Peter

    Seeing as we’re posting on each others blogs I’ll put my comments here as well – I’ve posted this to your blog

    I am, it’s true, more than a little puzzled how a writer can have – as far as I can tell – zero internet presence pre 2007 or so. Any other profession I could understand, but writers and people interested in self publicity (as you once described yourself to me) tend to get noticed by google. It does look odd, you must admit.

    You also claim to have 30 years of cannabis campaigning under your belt, yet I nor anyone else I’ve spoken to had heard of you prior to late last year. That doesn’t prove anything of course, but it does seem odd to someone like myself who has been following this issue quite closely for the past 20 years or so.

    But all that said I pay by results. The lack of success of the LCA has indeed been staggering and you seem to be doing what is needed.

    Cannabis has hardly been our of the news for the past 10 years, it beggers belief that a campaign could have been so unsuccessful as the old LCA has been.

    I tried without luck to make the sort of changes in the LCA You seem to be promising and was dismissed as being disruptive, which is why I do strongly support what you say you want to do with CLeaR.

    I will continue to be critical, but I will also be supportive when you do good things and I will always do so in my own name.

    UKCIA is:

  11. I return the courtesy:

    This a thread from the LCA forum back in February.I think it answers most of your questions but I’ll happily provide any further detail you want.

    Alun wrote:

    Yesterday I was talking with a local LCA member that never voted in the recent polls, and explaining that peter was elected by an overwhelming majority – although i point out that a number of members – was it 8? voted “both” so Stewart actually got 9 votes.

    I was asked who is Peter and what did I know about him. I know very little – I do think it would be good to know a little more, for members, prospective members and even ex-members.

    I know Peter is a freelance journalist, has a well-read blog, helped out with Pinky when he went to court, joined the LCA two months ago, and that he says he has been campaigning for cannabis legalisation for 30 years.

    With respect, not asking for too much personal info, I would politely ask:

    are you married? do you have children? if so, what do they feel about this election success?
    are you or have you been a member of any political party?
    have you ever stood for election other than this one?
    what jobs have you done/
    have you ever had a criminal record?
    have you any academic qualifications?
    are you a member of any professional bodies?
    have you ever worked for any Government Department?
    Have you ever been bankrupt?
    do you consider yourself in any way disadvantaged?
    have you had many letters / articles published in the last 30 years?
    do you follow any religion or belief system?
    how much authority as LCA leader do you think you should have, given that the LCA Constitution stipulates that authority lies with the Admin team – would you want to change that?

    I’ll post this in the election results thread too

    Peter wrote:

    I am more than happy to answer Alun’s questions. However, I have now posted a new thread “Immediate Plans Following My Election As Leader” and that is where to go to discuss the future.

    Q. are you married? do you have children? if so, what do they feel about this election success?

    A. I have been married twice. I now live alone with two dogs! My profile is here:

    I have two boys: Richard, aged 24 who did PPE at UEA and has just completed a post graduate diploma in law; Evan, aged 21, who had a life changing experience five years ago when he lost his left hand in a road accident. He has risen to the challenge magnificently and is now at UWE in Bristol studying property development. They both know all their Dad’s idiosyncracies and are supportive. Richard is helping me with drafting the constitution.

    Q. are you or have you been a member of any political party?

    A. I was a member of The Freedom Association, probably 30 years ago for a short while and I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party on and off but not for about three or four years now. I have voted Tory most of my life. During the Blair years I spoiled my ballot papers, writing “no suitable candidate” across them. Last year I voted UKIP in the European elections and Tory in the general election.

    Q. have you ever stood for election other than this one?

    A. No

    Q. what jobs have you done

    A. I was a salesman originally, moving into advertising sales which led me into training as a copywriter. I then worked in advertising agencies for 15 years finishing up as a creative director at Saatchi & Saatchi in the early 1990s. I also did a bit of freelance journalism along the way. I then worked as a freelance communications consultant mainly in healthcare and medicine. Simultaneously my journalism career was progressing. I had a regular column in the Independent for a while and then various editorial roles on publications for doctors and about healthcare and pharmaceuticals. I now make my living principally as a freelance writer and journalist. I have just started my third novel.

    Q. have you ever had a criminal record?

    A. I’m probably entitled to answer no to that as my convictions are spent but let’s get all the skeletons out of my closet.!

    Yes, I was convicted of an offence of dishonesty about 12 years ago. Also, when I was 17, I spent a month in prison abroad for possession of three tabs of acid and two grams of weed! It doesn’t show up if you check me out so I’m not about to volunteer any further information!

    Also, I spent three months in Brixton prison on remand in 2003. I was charged with assaulting my girlfriend. The charges were dropped when eventually the medical reports revealed a long list of injuries on me and not a scratch on her. She had attacked me with a baseball bat. Obviously I would not have chosen to spend three months inside but it is an experience I value immensely!

    Q. have you any academic qualifications?

    A. Seven “O” levels

    Q. are you a member of any professional bodies?

    A. No

    Q. have you ever worked for any Government Department?

    A. I have worked as a communications advisor to several health authorities, NHS Trusts, the Ministry of Defence and the British Forces in Germany.

    Q. Have you ever been bankrupt?

    A. In the late 1980s I undertook the development of a small 60 acre farm which was valued at £1.75 million. After the crash, in 1992 I was forced into a sale for £400,000. I was made bankrupt thereafter and fully discharged two years later.

    Q. do you consider yourself in any way disadvantaged?

    A. No

    Q. have you had many letters / articles published in the last 30 years?

    A. Dozens on many subjects.

    If you’re asking about my record as a cannabis campaigner, I would say that it has been in bursts. In the late 1970s, I wrote the report “An Unaffordable Prejudice” for the Home Affairs Committee and many letters to newspapers, MPs and ministers. In the 1980s not so much. In the 1990s a little more regularly but as an “armchair campaigner”. As I’ve said elsewhere, my passion for the cause was re-ignited when I moved out of London in 2007 and realised how the evidence of medicinal benefit was becoming overwhelming. I started my blog in 2008.

    Q. do you follow any religion or belief system?

    A. I call myself an agnostic. I believe in a God which is a supreme intelligence or collective consciousness. Although there are many good people who are religious and I respect faith, I think that organiised religion has been responsible for more evil in the world than almost anything else.

    Q. how much authority as LCA leader do you think you should have, given that the LCA Constitution stipulates that authority lies with the Admin team – would you want to change that?

    A. I would wish to do everything by consensus with the management committee and membership. As mentioned, I have now posted a new thread “Immediate Plans Following My Election As Leader” and that is where to go to discuss the future.

    I hope that answering these questions has been useful.

  12. anonymous except to nosey IP readers website administrators and almost anyone who wanted to finf out says:

    Phew, so we mustn’t risk misjudging the man, if we do we are likely to be sued or arrested. Worst case scenario? Let’s not even go there. I see Derek you have taken the liberty of placing 2 of the characters in the CLEAR brand with lower case letters for the ‘e’ and the ‘a’ – presumably as they don’t actually stand for anything.

    What about all these IP and defamation lawyers being instructed? This is not what we expect from a drug-fueled summer of love.

  13. Hi Peter, having had a look through the comments on your blog, I think it’s fair to say your willingness to be open can’t be called into question. I just hope you can appreciate why these things need to be asked and that it’s not meant as a personal slight, least not from myself. Whilst I may not agree with you in all areas, you are making huge waves in the reform community and for that you should certainly be commended. Like Sam I’m a relative young ‘un compared to you guys and I haven’t done nearly half as much to help “the cause”. I am aware of how frustrating it must be to have someone like me question your integrity but I feel that if there are questions to be asked it’s best that they’re answered early. It would seem that the main one would easily be solved by posting some previous publications. I know you shouldn’t have to but it would definitely nip these allegations in the bud.

  14. Peter, I think I know what Dragon means.

    The observation I’ve made is that as far as the normally all-seeing eye of google is concerned, you don’t seem to exist before around 2007/8 – after which time your internet footprint is huge.

    Now you claim to be a writer – and lets be honest you are good at it – and a person who’s tried hard to promote his interests but you don’t seem to have anything in the public domain earlier than 2008 – perhaps 2007. Like I say, that’s odd.

    I think what Dragon is asking is can you point us at something – anything really – written by you prior to 2007/8? Of course I would be especially interested in seeing anything you’ve written regarding cananbis law reform before that time.

    Look, the only reason for asking for this is that you’ve claimed to have been doing these things and the first thing I do when someone tells me they’ve been doing something is to check them out.

    I’m not interested in personality issues incidentally, whilst your political views are almost the polar opposite to mine in so many respects that doesn’t matter as long as you come up with the goods which you seem to be doing with CLeaR. I admire single minded determined people as long as that single mindedness doesn’t cross the very thin line into arrogance. We do needed someone with determination to shake the LCA uo and take the cannabis law reform campaign forward and you do seem to be going a good job of it.

    Oh and anonymous thingy above – CLeaR isn’t an acronym – hence I use lower case for the e and a. I assume Peter understands that but it’s up to him and his team to decide on their logo.

  15. It’s an intended acronym that doesn’t work unless there are two more letters to come.

    I don’t like this using of sick people as some kind of pretext for action. We must focus on getting cannabis legalised for all rather than this acute cases warrant more freedom than others nonsense. In fact, why even focus on cannabis, the time has come to say we should all be free to be our own doctors unless there is a very good reason not to let us self-medicate with anything.

  16. Peter has censored my posts to his blog, the LCA FB group and has unfriended me.

    What is he scared of?

  17. Exactly as Derek has said there, anything really, so long as it’s within the time period the allegation covers, ie in the past 30 years previous to 2008.
    Just looking through your answers to Aluns questions posted above I’d assume the easiest to source (if you no longer own originals) would be something from your Independant Column. I’m not expecting a year by year itinerary as by your own admission it’s not something you’ve been doing continuously. Yet a few pieces of work shown shouldn’t be too much of a chore. Ideally if you were able to post the 1970’s report that would be perfect although I could understand if that’s not possible. Considering the accusation appears to based on your background more than anything else I don’t really think it even matters too much about what the subject is. Just anything you can use to show how idiotic these allegations must appear to you.

    @Anonymous etc..
    People did used to self medicate, it turned out they really weren’t very good at it. The huge amount of unforseen suffering that would occur from “letting people self-medicate with anything” is more than a “very good reason” not to do it. What we need is proper regulation of substances. Not allowing dangerous things to be sold by dangerous people.

  18. Well I’m bemused by your question. Most of my earlier work isn’t available online as it was for businesses or institutions. Nevertheless, I can dig out a few things and scan them. My Independent column was back in the late 90s. I’ll see if I can find some clippings.

    I really don’t understand though, do you think I am telling porkies about my background and if so what one earth do you think I hope to gain? It’s a strange attitude to take. I’m not asking Derek or Alun or anyone else for such explanation. Why on earth are you on this path?

    As for Mr Stovell, he is banned and barred and will remain so. He seeks to cause trouble by creating stink about a comment I placed on a local newspaper website. Who does he think he is? I don’t answer to him for my opinions and no political party leader would tolerate his entirely negative, silly and pathetic heckling. He is a a sad internet troll and nothing else.

    As to the premise of this whole article, the suggestion that I have stage a coup. The facts just don’t support this.

    It’s not a coup at all and this does seem to be a fundamental misunderstanding which those who wish to make mischief have siezed upon.

    The facts are that I was elected by the membership based on a manifesto which you can read here:

    Immediately following my election I set out how I was going to implement my manifesto which you can read here:

    I then consulted with the membership about a possible change of name:

    Following a management committee meeting, a new ballot was held and the membership voted to adopt a new constitution and to rename as Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR). Our future strategy is set out here:

    This has been an entirely democratic process. I and the committee have been scrupulous throughout in following the correct procedure. At all times we have and will act in the interests of and based on the decisions of the membership.

    I very much hope that CLEAR will have the support of UKCIA and I am prepared to be entirely transparent, even to go to what seems to me to be entirely disproportionate efforts to prove my bona fides.

    Who the hell else is subject to this sort of scrutiny?

  19. Honestly, no, I don’t think you are telling porkies. Mainly because you seem strong enough of character, people in glass houses tend not to throw stones. Although, whilst it may not seem as if there would be a “point” to making such a frivolous lie, there are people out there with compulsions to do such things. Not all con-men do what they do for money. I’m not actually saying anything about you personnally, just pointing out that there are plausible “reasons”.
    Simply (and to answer why the scrutiny) you have stepped into a position in which you wish to represent others. These people are going to want to know they can trust in their representative. I think it’s safe to say that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    I’m not really bothered by the whole name nonsense and I do really respect the things your looking to do with CLEAR. Also I don’t know enough of the inner politics of the old LCA to dare comment on how you got to where you are. The big thing that makes me uncomfortable about saying I’d definitely tick (or number?) the box in your favour is this allegation. Please bear in mind that it’s not me whose made it, I’m just interested in it’s answer.

    That being the case, it’s not the sole reason I made the suggestion. A much more important reason is that, were it to be the case that these allegations are true, the great measures your trying to implement could be stained by the the controversy. And if there’s one thing I know for sure, it’s that those on other side of the debate love muddying the waters. If there’s a sure fire way of stopping such a thing, I really think it should be done as early as possible. At least before it gets used as ammunition against you and in turn against the message your delivering.

  20. Seriously?
    Well, copy and pasted from that blog (which has changed a hell of alot since I last looked at it):

    “Is he lying? Mysterious man with no record …
    Peter Reynolds Monitor will further investigate Peter Reynolds’ claims of his epic journalist legacy which he heralds around various pro-cannabis websites and forums and uses as a medal presented cannabis and medical users in return for ‘respect’ to his ego.”

    It would seem to me that the allegation is that you have lied about your background and are either not as profficient a journalist or haven’t been as involved with drug law reform as you claim. Your last post (the one with the er? Lovely moustache?) certainly starts to prove that you have a past in journalism. You’ll have to excuse my last post appearring after yours, I started typing about 8 o’clock, got sidetracked and ended up missing your second post (I’m assuming that may be where the confusion lies?).

  21. I should add that the excerpt I took has also got a section above it expecting you to have some sort of extensive library of works on cannabis reform but I think it’s fair to say you haven’t claimed such a thing. I’m happy if your 30 years of activism is filled with 25 of just signing petitions or some otherwise less direct activism. A rose by any other name…

  22. Well, I’m not going to bother my head with it. It’s self-evidently ridiculous. I didn’t realise how weak and impotent the criticism is!

  23. You may not of won over your accuser but I for one am not going to labour on this point any further. You’ve shown two pieces that prove a background in journalism and at pretty short notice too. Whilst it may of been self-evident to you, it quite obviously wasn’t as much for others. I apologise if you thought I was attacking you, honestly that was not my intention. I just hope that you can appreciate why it was important for me to be more certain? I wish you good luck with CLEAR and look forward to seeing how things develop over the next few years.

  24. I’ve just deleted an exchange between Phil Stovell and Peter Reynolds – this isn’t the place for such squabbles.

    What I will say though in answer to Peter’s question above:

    As for Mr Stovell … Who does he think he is?

    Phil Stovell has been involved in the cannabis law reform campaign for many years, Peter. I would say not knowing his name is odd for someone who has been following this issue as you claim to have been. Phil has, lets say, been out of circulation for a while and has returned to a much changed landscape.

    As for your other question about being asked to justify yourself:

    Who the hell else is subject to this sort of scrutiny?

    Everyone in the public eye, Peter. You’re going to get a lot more of this as your profile rises, get used to it. I suppose the only way to cope with it is to enjoy it.

    Oh and yeah – if you want to be taken seriously never, ever, have a ‘tash like that again!

  25. Derek, I entirely agree with you editing out the ridiculous squabble between Phil Stovell and me. Of course I know who he is but I do not recognise his behaviour!

    Dragon, thank you for your response. I will post one or two other items when I’ve had time to scan them which further prove my credentials and that I have told the truth about my background.

    Derek, are you now satisfied that I am who I say I am?

    I now know who is behind the hate web site. They are from that group of growers/dealers who do not want to se an end to prohibition because it lines their own pockets.

  26. Peter, I am and always will be a suspicious old trout, it’s served me well so far, I see no reason to change now.

    Let’s get on and make CLeaR work. If you do that I don’t really care who you are!

  27. I have missed the point here with all this ‘discussion’. I really don’t know what you are fighting over – you all seem to want cannabis legalised. As far as personal egos go you can call me whatever names you like or accuse me of whatever you like. So long as cannabis is legal and I can buy Parvati Hash and Thai sticks I really don’t care.

    Stick to a simple message and refute the accusations thrown at you. Don’t try to get clever and guess the wording that will strike a chord with the public because none of them will.

    It’s a little cliched but “Get up, stand up – Stand for your rights” – simple human rights. That’s how so many other movements for social change have succeeded (Votes for women, Civil Rights in America, Gay equality) often against public and political opinion at the time when they began. Cannabis users make up quite a sizeable minority that is currently persecuted – convince people of this and there is an army of do-gooders that will take up your cause. People rally behind a simple demand that can be expressed on a banner at a protest march they care little for how you organise your group’s structure.
    “Legalise Cannabis”
    “Cannabis Users have rights too”
    “Cannabis is not wrong”

    If you want some hints contact NORML in America ( ) they will be only too willing to help ! and they have some very good research and experts to back up your aims. You don’t need to re-invent the wheel to succeed.

  28. @phrtao, I just wanted to clear up the reasons for my part in this discussion. Generally I would agree with you that such things as this are irellevant. However, in this instance Peter is planning to do some pretty big things and is also looking to step in to an area somewhat beyond the arm-chair activism that most of us are engaged in. As such allegations like the one presented, would not only of been in a postion to harm Peter but also damage anything associated with him. Basically because of the logical fallacy that idea x is false because proponent z is a liar. Afterall if this debate was beat better with facts rather than political point scoring, none of us would need to be here. Evidentally, my worries were somewhat misplaced, Peter’s been very forthcoming and has certainly put to bed any fears I had.
    Finally I think I should point out that simple marches have little to no effect in our country. One of the biggest marches of our time (against the Iraq war) and more recently the march against the cuts (if I remember right, the third biggest) proved that fact quite well. Whilst reinventing the wheel may not be necessary we may have to make sure that the wheel they used is fit for purpose here. At the moment in this country it’s not public opinion you need to alter, it’s opinion of a minority that needs changing. With any luck that’s exactly what CLEAR will be in a position to do. Now the balls rolling only time will tell where it goes.

  29. Now “they” are saying Derek is MI5 or an internet troll. Is this to make a point? Someone got us all shooting at ourselves. Those who act to deceive others by assuming a false persona to gather information to be used against their interests, are particularly deluded and IMO, unworthy persons without a shred of integrity acting as mercenaries in this war against humanity.

  30. Who are “they”? Shit stir much? 🙂

    Glad UKCIA have take such a grown up view about all of this situation. Hopefully one day we’ll get cannabis properly regulated.

  31. “It’s right to be concerned” talks in riddles and compounds precisely the problem that he/she complains about!

    What this campaign needs is honesty, straightforwardness and CLEAR messages.

  32. What I am saying Peter Reynolds is that undercover agents in this field of infiltration are in my view the lowest form of humanity. This is because they simply are using dirty tactics in a context that does not warrant such measures. Whether recent accusations against Derek and you are delusional or otherwise, they exist because of prohibition creating mistrust. People will believe what they want, if they think 9/11 was a conspiracy, I don’t think some v old Amstrad leaflet is going to bury those concerns.

    I am not saying who ‘they’ are who are pointing the finger perhaps in jest at Derek as I do not know their real identities anyway.

  33. AFAIK, nobody is accusing Derek of anything and the reason why I asked who “they” were was to just to confirm this.

    If you truly believe that people are saying he is “MI5 or an internet troll” then perhaps you should have given reference as to where this was said?

    TBH, I think the chances of there actually being presence of “undercover agents in this field of infiltration” are extremely low.

    Granted, the internet is largely anonymous but by the looks of things people are trying to be as CLeaR and transparent with each other as possible in order to work towards a common goal.

    I still believe it is a negative thing for the cannabis community as a whole; these accusations and arguments over something which turns out to be next to nothing.

    But by the looks of things you are just exacerbating the problem… Just my opinion. 🙂


  34. It was someone on a certain grow forum apparently who accused me of being MI5 – and maybe Peter’s blog but I’m not sure about that. Honestly, life’s too short…

  35. Fair enough … I guess there will always be people like this. Your right, life is too short.

Comments are closed.