Peter Reynolds from Weymouth is leader of the political party Cannabis Law Reform Alliance (CLEAR). The following is an interview with Peter in which he was asked, amongst others, about CLEAR’s aims; why ending prohibition is beneficial both universally and to the people of Dorset and why he believes health care is a much more appropriate response by the state than criminal justice.
What is CLEAR and why is it important to you?
CLEAR, or by its full name, Cannabis Law Reform is an officially registered UK political party which seeks an end to the prohibition of cannabis, most urgently for those who need it as medicine.
I have always been outraged at the intrusion of the law into my personal liberty to use cannabis but when, about six or seven years ago, I began to realise how overwhelming the evidence was I became a much more active campaigner. It is an outrage that people whose lives can be transformed, who can be released from pain, and suffering and disability are prevented from getting the medicine they need. More than that they are criminalised, demonised and abused by politicians and the media based on a campaign of lies and misinformation.
In summary what are the main points within CLEAR’s argument?
Our aims and objectives are:
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.
Last year we published independent, expert research that shows a tax and regulatory system would minimise all health and social harms as well as producing a net gain to the UK economy of around £6.7 billion per annum. Taxing the UK Cannabis Market. A Report Commissioned by CLEAR
We do not claim that cannabis is harmless but the evidence is that it is about as addictive and as harmful as coffee. The psychosis scare story remains unproven despite hundreds of studies attempting to prove it. The facts are that despite a massive increase in cannabis use in the 1960s/70s, the rate and prevalence of psychosis has remained stable or even declined slightly. Also, official statistics on hospital admissions and drug treatment, adjusted for the number of regular users, show that alcohol use is six times more likely to lead to mental and behavioural problems.
How long has it been organised and what, if any, notable successes has it had so far?
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance was formed in 1999. I was elected leader in February 2011 and we changed our name to Cannabis Law Reform in March 2011.
I think our most notable achievements have been firstly, the publication of the “Taxing the UK Cannabis Market” report as mentioned above. This was launched at a press conference in the Houses of Parliament. Press Conference. Secondly, the current Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into drugs policy called for written evidence at the beginning of the year. Of all the submissions, CLEAR evidence is cited in 29% of cases. If the inquiry makes recommendations based on the evidence it has received, it will recommend reform. CLEAR submission to Home Office Select Committee
There are obviously many arguments both for and against the prohibition of cannabis. Are there any in particular, which argue for the maintenance of the current legislation, that you sympathise with?
No. If the intention is to reduce health and social harms then prohibition is a proven failure. Britain has one of the lowest ages at first use in Europe and the highest consumption rates by children. We consume about three tonnes of cannabis every day in this country and waste £500 million per annum in criminal justice costs on cannabis alone.
At the recent Home Affairs Select Committee Russell Brand articulated the effect of decriminalisation on addicts whilst proposing that the health care system should replace the criminal justice system in managing the state’s response. Where does CLEAR stand on this?
It is self-evident that drug addiction is a health problem and every inquiry, every scientist, every doctor; every honest politician knows that making it a criminal justice matter is absurd. 99.9% of cannabis use is non-problematical anyway.
Russell Brand at the Home Office Select Committee
Cannabis is sometimes described as the ‘gateway’ drug. Do you agree?
It is a gateway to a criminal market in which people may be offered dangerous drugs – but the most dangerous drug of all is available in any supermarket or corner shop in unlimited quantities. There is no logical or evidence-based policy on drugs in Britain.
Is it difficult to maintain the message that CLEAR advocates whilst living in Dorset?
Not really. The internet makes communication relatively easy. I travel up to London and around the country regularly for debates and meetings.
In your experience how would Dorset gain if the prohibition of cannabis was to be lifted?
We would save a huge amount of taxpayer’s money presently wasted on the criminal justice system. Our police and courts could focus on real crimes where there is a victim.
We would benefit from bringing this multi-billion pound market out of the black economy with increased funds for schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
Thousands of new jobs would be created in licensed growing and production facilities. One independent expert predicts up to 100,000 new, well paid jobs within five years.
