Peter ReynoldsThe life and times of Peter Reynolds
Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter!
with 36 comments
Call Cameron To Account
Following the example of my comrade-in-arms, Jason “HomeGrown Outlaw” Reed, here is another letter writing campaign.
Yesterday, on YouTube, David Cameron gave a shockingly inaccurate and misleading answer to a question about cannabis. You can read the full story and watch the video here.
I have written to Mr Cameron asking that he meet me as the leader of the LCA so that I can prove to him how wrong he is. Now what is needed is for hundreds, preferably thousands of us, to write to Mr Cameron asking him to arrange that meeting.
What I would suggest is that you print out a copy of my letter and then attach it to a letter of your own.
You can download and print my letter here.
I suggest your letter goes something like this:
(Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter. That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)
Dear Mr Cameron,
I was very concerned by what you said recently on YouTube about marijuana. The leader of the LCA has written to you asking for a meeting (copy attached). He represents my interests so will you please arrange to see him?
Yours etc
Mr Cameron’s address is:
David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
If you want to take it one step further, send a copy to your MP too.
(Find out who you MP is at www.parliament.uk. Please copy, paste and edit to make it a little more personal. Better still, make it a hand-written note clipped to the copy of my letter. That is the sort of thing that will make most impact. Don’t forget your reply address.)
Dear (insert name),
I was very concerned by what David Cameron said recently on YouTube about marijuana. The leader of the LCA has written to him asking for a meeting (copy attached). He represents my interests so please, will you ask Mr Cameron to see him?
Yours etc
Your MP’s address is:
(insert name) MP
House Of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Share this: Facebook
StumbleUpon
Digg
Written by Peter Reynolds
February 26, 2011 at 18:50
Posted in Consumerism, Politics
Tagged with cannabis, David Cameron, Homegrown Outlaw, Jason Reed, LCA, Legalise Cannabis Alliance, letter, marijuana, MP, prime minister, YouTube
« Mr Cameron, It’s You Who Needs Education About Cannabis!LikeOne blogger likes this post.
36 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
at the end of camerons ignorant grunting he mentioned that the goverments stance is an “anti drugs policy” not an evidence based one , pure corruption from the horses husbands mouth
boss
February 26, 2011 at 19:04
Reply
Fraudulent misrepresentation? Outright lying in public office? Misleading and lying to the electorate?
Which toxins is he talking about? Anyone know? As I understand it, no toxins have ever been found despite exhaustive efforts by the government to prove that they do.
I think he’s been dipping into Brokendick’s stash?
They are both clearly wasted on something. Maybe its just their own egos.
I suggest that this is a time to unite with the likes of Transform and all the other lobbying bodies across the UK. The sums of our parts…..
I really believe this Peter. LCA Great.. LCA with Transform and others would have a far louder voice. Surely there are laws about lying in public office. He should be called on this. It is demonstrable that he is lying and misleading the people of the nation he is paid to govern.
Nick
February 26, 2011 at 19:43
Reply
I totally Agree.. I do not pay taxes into a system for the system to broadcast lies and misinformation. Totally inappropriate but just goes to show the kind of politics we are up against today. I say up against because this party will never represent anything that relates to my life because I am not a corporation.
Pistils@dawn
February 26, 2011 at 20:51
Reply
Fountain pen and Smythsons paper at the ready - I am going to send my letters Recorded Delivery!
Peta
February 26, 2011 at 19:45
Reply
I’m going to write to my MP to enquire his position on the matter.
However, I want to be fully prepared – has anyone got any direct links to peer-reviewed studies that confirm Cannabis is both not “very, very toxic” and does not cause “huge mental health problems”. Such as http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/193/5/357 or http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/195/6/492?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Jake
February 26, 2011 at 20:24
Reply
anti drug policy?
Big pharma pulling his member for him.
WHAT A WANKER
Letter sent!
Architect NZ
February 26, 2011 at 22:27
Reply
I honestly cant believe someone who has been educated at some of the finest schools in the world can be so ignorant, Peter – thankyou from each and everyone of us that use cannabis not only medically but recreastionally as well, I strongly believe if people power can help free a country it can only go on and help free us to use cannabis without the fear of prosecution.
Johnny
February 26, 2011 at 22:41
Reply
If I can be any help from the Cannabis College in Amsterdam. The untruths that Cameron and his cohorts preach, have to STOP NOW. I am doing evything possible to get the laws overturned back home in my beautiful England and I SHALL NOT REST UNTIL THIS HAPPENS. I accuse you Cameron of failing to provide my father who suffered from Parkinson’s disease,the very BEST tratment that he could have had. One joint of cannabis made him feel normal again and he had complete relief from all the effects of the disease.
For you Cameron, stating that Cannabis is a toxic plant, then you are calling my deceased father a liar
andI shall NOT ACCEPT THIS. By the way, he was a Senior Architect for the Metropolitan Police!
WE MUST END PROHIBITION NOW.
All power to you Peter and our vibes for the coming
chalenges ahead.
Andy Tours
February 27, 2011 at 09:41
Reply
It’s kind of rich for Cameron to be spreading lies about cannabis. Didn’t he get into trouble at Eton for possession? He only got a slap on the wrist if I’m not mistaken.
buddyhell
February 27, 2011 at 10:39
Reply
If it does become legal; it will because it means that the Government will be slapping a thumping great tax on it!
The Debt Collector
February 27, 2011 at 17:42
Reply
The only problem with this is – you’re likely to get your door kicked in by the gestapo looking for a loft full of “Killer skunk”.
Many of us are having to keep silent, as we need to keep under the radar.
Mr Bimble
February 27, 2011 at 18:53
Reply
Do you really think so? Do they take pops at bloggers?
My lofts full of bloody christmas decorations so they’d be a bit disappointed in me!
Nick
February 27, 2011 at 19:15
Reply
They know where I am. They can be sure of finding me with up to, ooh, three or four grams anytime they want to call. It’s in my own home, behind closed doors, my own business. If that’s the way they want to waste public money – bring it on!
Peter Reynolds
February 27, 2011 at 21:00
Reply
I asked you before but you didn’t reply – when (if) ‘they’ bring it on, what will your tactics be? Plead not guitly? Upon what legal basis?
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 02:41
Reply
IMHO i would use the No consent, no contract, no confidence approach. The courts have no legal binding anyhow if you dont give them consent.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 12:42
Reply
Also there is the Corpus delecti angle, no crime committed no punishment involved. Its an OLLLLLD Roman maxim of law that the law society abide by and cannot break.
A crime has to be proven to have been committed, its on the onus of the solicitor and the courts to prove there has been damage, loss or harm. If no damage, harm or loss is involved there is no crime… read up on it.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 12:45
Reply
Whoops a daisy, I was asking Peter as he is brazenly telling everyone he is involved with what is considered to be criminal activity. If he signs up to this advice (freeman or some ancient Roman law) then that will doubtless turn off a few more lights from his followers. BTW – the courts impose laws, there is no need to show actual harm – the govt can administer the drug laws with a view to reducing the harm caused to society. Whilst the policy can be challenged, yoiu cannot just go in and say it doesn’t apply as (a) I dont consent (no consent is reqd for criminal law, it applies to you because you are an adult on UK soil), or (b) the Romans wouldn’t like it (harm can be entirely notional).
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 13:06
Reply
Actually you can…, search youtube for freeman on the land and council tax. Statutes are UNLAWFUL and require consent, its up to you how you give consent or not.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 13:11
Reply
This is what we need here.
http://www.chanvre-info.ch/info/en/Belgium-Cannabis-law-changed.html
It’s a start
buddyhell
February 27, 2011 at 19:17
Reply
Wow, wouldn’t that be great!
Nick
February 27, 2011 at 19:19
Reply
I have said it before, and it was accepted by Peter that he must not make wild claims about who he represents. A couple of dozen people at the LCA does NOT authorise him to claim: “I represent the interests of at least two million regular users of cannabis and perhaps as many as 10 million occasional users in Britain. This is a huge proportion of the population and on their behalf I am requesting a meeting with you.” You do not speak for anyone other than the LCA so please stop claiming you do.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 02:47
Reply
Darryl, who needs enemies or opponents when they have friends like you, eh?
To the best of my knowledge, I am the only elected representative of cannabis users in Britain. I regard it not only as quite proper but, in fact, as an obligation and responsibility that I should seek to represent the interests of all cannabis users.
Now let’s be careful and precise about the use of language here shall we Darryl? I don’t represent all cannabis users but I do seek to represent their interests.
I regularly and frequently support your and DEA’s efforts in the quagmire that is British drug policy Darryl. I never snipe or troll at you or any of your colleagues. It would be so much more pleasant and effective for us all if you could extend the same courtesy to me. Bickering and quibbling with each other does not help our cause.
Peter Reynolds
February 28, 2011 at 08:55
Reply
Whatever the LCA want, you do not represent cannabis users, or their interests which pretty much amounts to the same thing. It may be your aspiration, but writing to the PM claiming that you do represent all these people’s interests is plain ridiculous – there are plenty of people out there you really wouldn’t want to represent their interests, and a much bigger number who take serious issue with your fantastical claims. Friends or enemies, it all depends on your conduct actually, stop saying that you are my friend and just act like you are with the integrity your assumed role requires, and then we won’t have to have these conversations. You have about 24 votes I understand, good for you – if you want I can start a list of people who don’t want to be represented by you, although obviously the vast majority of the millions of people who’s interests you seek to represent have never heard of you or me. It’s simple really, just represent your supporters and stop this, then we can get back to arguing about the language content which as you know I am very dissatisfied with despite your laudible efforts to produce high quality propaganda.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 09:23
Reply
Really whats the problem here? Are we all not on the same side? do we all not want the cannabis laws changed?.
This in fighting and childish bickering needs to stop if the pro cannabis lobby is to go futhur than the tie died hippy raging about wanting to get stoned legally.
Can we not put aside differences and work together then sort out the details at a later date?
I really cant imagine WHY people are against this.., maybe i have the wrong end of the stick apfu.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 10:40
Reply
Darryl, I don’t propose to engage with you anymore now. I thought that you had realised the negative effect of your trolling last time you did this. It is self-evident to everybody except you.
The Drug Equality Alliance is doing admirable work in calling the government to account over its maladministration of the MoDA. I shall continue to support it in that. It’s just a pity that, unlike your colleagues, you can’t extend me the same courtesy.
Peter Reynolds
February 28, 2011 at 11:25
Reply
All I have to say is “united we stand, divided we fall”.
We really need some unity in this struggle. Anyone who is against the persecution of cannabis users is my friend. We can sort out our differences once we have ended the persecution.
Dan
February 28, 2011 at 13:27
Reply
Darryl, I’m not a member of any of these pro-legalisation groups and really I’ve only stumbed across this blog in the last few weeks yet i’m quite happy for Peter to claim to represent my interests.
I can’t imagine any one of the 2 million regular Cannabis users, or any one of the up to 10 million occasional Cannabis users, would prefer for the laws to remain unchanged. I’m sure that whether they stand up and make a deal of it or not, they would all much rather that Cannabis was legalised. Therefore, legalisation of Cannabis is in their interests. Peter, like every other campaigner out there, represents these interests – because they are the ones getting up and making efforts to change the law. So really, it’s more than fair to say that Peter represents the interests of all 10 million users.
Jimmy
February 28, 2011 at 13:50
Reply
Do read my other posts please – you simply cannot legalise cannabis – this is why we are stuck. The law regulates people, not drugs. No drug is illegal. They have powers to control you in respect of your drugs, this under policy extinguishes most of your rights, but this is very different from drugs being illegal. We must get out of this trap.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 14:16
Reply
Darryl I am not a member of the LCA or UKCIA, I am however a medical user of cannabis and have replaced all my toxic medication with cannabis, and now living a fairly healthy life. If you were dependant on cannabis to keep your health, then I think you would agree, as I do that anyone especialy Peter that gives there time, and stands up for cannabis users, is speaking for us all.
graham
February 28, 2011 at 11:39
Reply
No, he is speaking for himself, the LCA and you and anyone else who agrees. He cannot assume because he gives his time that we want him as a spokesperson for the whole UK. Whether I am dependent or not is not the issue – I expect him to present himself in his truthful capacity rather than claiming to speak for all users. I expect him not to use the false language lies adopted by govt to justify their position. I take issue with it because the core point is that the whole problem rests on the supposed legality and illegal;ity of drugs, this is false and what the govt rely upon. So far peter just repeats teh same old material. We need a new approach, and sliockness isn’t enough, we need to understand what is hapening and why. In any event whilst I feel you should have cannabis, running a divisive campaign showcasing medical use will not create the change we need – we need to use universalist principles for all persons, these are freedoms we must go for – I find if difficult to support a medical use campaign because it just doesn’t add up – medical use should not be defined, all use is ‘medical’.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 13:13
Reply
I gotta agree with jimbob. Arguing the toss over the wording of a letter is not only petty but to do it in public is counter productive. Like it or not peter is the face of lca. I fear the reason the lca has been so throughly in effective in recent years is down to such internal biccering.
What the lca has now is a spokesman with not only drive but focus. He has reacted to disinformation that our pm has voiced in a timely manner with a call to arms. Should we have a meeting, take some minutes while drinking real ale? Or should we infact stand up and be counted?
sorry to be negative but the time for infighting has long past.
dump_pharma
February 28, 2011 at 11:29
Reply
Agreed dumnp_pharma, its utterly stupid to have infighting when the pro lobby is working towards a change in the law.
I put it to you Darryl, if you want a change in the law regarding cannabis, like it or not Peter DOES represent YOUR interests.
If you dont like how he is going about it get on board with constructive criticism or really get the F$£% out and start your own movement. As far as i have seen LCA has done NOTHING in the past 5-8 yrs to change cannabis laws. They may have complained a little, made a couple of youtube vids complaining again but really NOTHING has changed, they have been wholly ineffective. It real website terms the LCA has been dead for a long time with only a couple of die hard users/admins and a small handful of users keeping it barely going.
I for one am applauding Peters approach, its about time the LCA had a fresh face with motivation. I didnt like the idea of peter going into the LCA in the first place because of my attitude towards their non-action and general perception of the avg cannabis user. Things NEED to change and inevitably some people will fall by the wayside as change takes place.
I could equally say Darryl, that your minority of people who dont agree with Peters methods are just that…, a minority. The LCA in the past didnt represent my ideals or thinking on this subject, it is getting there now as far as my ideals are concerned. Lets face it past campaigns have been an utter failure things need to change. whether it’ll be for the good or not we will have to see, but anything is better than the failure of the LCA’s past campaigns.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 11:58
Reply
Just because it was crap before doesn’t mean that we should accept peter’s approach uncritically. I do have my own organisation, and this is not professional jealousy, it is simply that I know what the problem is in one very important aspect. Progress depends upon people who are getting the media attention capitialising on that. If they continuie to work in the old way and use the wrong language, then irrespective of what tehy think they are achieving, in my view they are compounding the problem. it is because the govt need to maintain the illusion of legal and illegal drugs being the outcome of the law that this is happening – its all lies I can asure you. No drug can be legal or illegal in law, we must explain to people that drugs are not really controlled in any sense, not on the streets or even in law. What are controlled are people’s rights to property in drugs, its a v imp distinction, we must chalenge Cameron when he says he will not legalise illegal drugs. This is part of the lie, you cannot legalise drugs, you cannot, illegal drugs do not exist. This language creates the artificial divide between drug users, between people. It is built on this, its not a technical point, it is the point.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 13:23
Reply
“This is part of the lie, you cannot legalise drugs, you cannot, illegal drugs do not exist. This language creates the artificial divide between drug users, between people. It is built on this, its not a technical point, it is the point.”
Indeed, this brings me right back to my earlier point in another reply. Cameron said he wants to keep illegal drugs illegal.., but how can he when they aren’t illegal in the first place?
What we are battling with is called “legalese” ( the language of the law society ), its not meant to be “understood” by the common man its purely a law society fiction given weight by the government and given the full force of law by the consent of the governed.
Even in the Tory manifesto before election they admitted in writing “Policing relies on consent”, he has also said in PMQ’s fleetingly that the “government still rule by consent”. There is weight here that needs to be played just as insidiously as the government plays it.
Lets face it for years and years the government has had drug policy wrong, the only reason they have gotten away with it is because WE HAVE LET THEM. Its time to play them at their own game in the media and with the power of words. Time for niceties and subdued complaining is OVER.
Why you cant get on board with peter is beyond me, offer solution instead of petty bickering otherwise your efforts will do nothing but hinder the LCA and itll turn out to be a none event like before…, or is this what your wanting?
IMHO the world according to jimbob we should get George Soros on board ( he dontated $1m to the recently lost ballad of prop19 in California) see if he can make a donation to the LCA and use any donations in a direct attack on government policy as publicly as possible. The media should be publicly accountable for the lies as well as the governments past and present also. Trouble is how do you get your campaign out there using the media if your going to drag them through the dirt aswell.
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 13:46
Reply
actually its not legalese really – its conceptual. First focus on the fact that people are being oppressed, not drugs. Then look at how iots being done and under what authority, the authority comes from the misunderstanding inherrent in the phrase ‘alcohol is a ‘legal drug’ – we have to take it apart to see what is happening. Yes policy says that it is illegal to possess some drugs, but is this consistent with the actual law? Have govt addressed themselves to the right questions? No they haven’t – they think that cannabis is illegal, if they understood even this we could expose them, and there is no chance of doing this with campaigns running free, talking about ‘illegal cannabis’ and then failing to address the issue, instead preferring to criticise the messenger, usually very nastily. We cannot be united yet, not because whilst I do not agree with these matters tactically, but because some points are essential. For example whilst I am against divisive campaigns for medical cannabis (yes it is divisive already in content), I can ignore much of that as see it is a focused issue which people are perfectly entitled to make. What I cannot countenance is people making the problem worse by making publoicity about illegal drugs and all that nonsense when they should know better. How can I join in and support something that is diametrically opposed to what i stand for? Forget the sentiment, look at the content. Peter represents the LCA – fact. Illegal drugs do not exist -fact. All I want is accuracy and facts, we can all agree on facts, that is what science is about, removing opinion by talking about what we know, not what we think. If Peter is accurate then i will not criticise hios work even though I do not support his methodology of focussing on medical use. If he spreads the prohibitionist memes, then I will pick him up until he stops. I have irritated the Vienna Declaration people and Transform and many others with this, and I do not regret any of it, i don’t care if it annoys people, what’s important is the truth and making the transformation. Using the wrong language works against progress, that’s it, some people see it,others cannot. I can see it now but it took me a long time, its not a peripheral issue at all, it is the key to opening this up.
Darryl Bickler
February 28, 2011 at 14:04
Reply
Ah right now i see your point Darryl.., and i have to say i agree. If the onus is put on medicinal use the gov will just bring out a synthetic version of thc much like they are doing america. They have tried here in the UK with sativex (although not synthetic) also. America is on the verge of rescheduling THC but not herbal cannabis.., i mean eh? wtf is that all about?
The only trouble with your way of thinking (that i can see) is, how do you start to make the government accountable for their lies? I mean they pretty much own the courts and law society or any avenue of mass media.., so how do you get it out there in a language that your avg joe anti cannabis person will understand?
Indeed should the pro lobby be even concerned with that and just go straight for the government/law society jugular?.Personally i think using the medicinal angle (although fully understandable) could do more damage than good and end up with a situation similar to what i mentioned above.
Again its back to the old question on “How do we effectively make government accountable for lies?” Indeed do the pro lobby need to do this at all? Is it really just a matter of repealing, not fit for purpose, statutes and acts? The MoD act is a real piece of work that’s actually quite gracious in its execution, but at the end of the day acts and statutes are just that and not technically lawful until you consent to them.
Thats an easy way out tbh, we need more clarification if these acts are to be reviewed, tieing them up in their own language would be a good option, whether it’ll be effective is another matter.
At the end of the day we need to government to recognise that cannabis is not illegal like you said, its acts by people concerning cannabis that’s illegal according to them. We need people to stand up enmasse and say NO LONGER will you treat us like children by attempting to undermine our personal sovereign rights by passing unlawful acts and continuing with them if they are not fit for purpose. Cannabis related or not your going to see a whole lot more people kicking up a shit about statutes and acts the longer we go into this poor tory ideology of cuts and the “big society”.
The tory ideology of the big society where a government reduces its “top down” controls and relinquishes them to local councils might be a place to start.
Still the Corpus delecti seems to be a good way to go as a start. Really if i decide to grow my own cannabis and ingest that.., where is the harm? who have i caused harm to? who have i caused loss to? This has to be proven in a criminal court, there are NO exceptions afaik.
And yes legalese is conceptual but that still doesnt make it any less effective in the law societies eyes and it certainly doesnt stop them from carrying out unlawful acts, infact it enhances them greatly.
So to conclude (phew) Couldnt you see yourself as part of this newly enacted movement in the LCA but just keep plugging your personal preference? I see that your opinion carries weight and it would be important to have that along too. Lets face it ANY ammo the pro lobby comes up with no matter how many people disagree its all on the same page afterall?
jimbob
February 28, 2011 at 14:50
Reply
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Subscribe to this site by email
Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Pages
About Me
PJR TV
Search
Search for:
Recent Posts
Don’t Let Cameron Get Away With His Untruths About Cannabis. Write A Letter!
Mr Cameron, It’s You Who Needs Education About Cannabis!
STOP THIEF! £1.45 Million Banker Robber.
STOP THIEF! £2 Million Banker Robber.
When We Grow…This Is What We Can Do
New LCA
The Hemp Revolution
The Union: The Business Behind Getting High
Emperor Of Hemp
In Pot We Trust
“New LCA” – Call For Nominations
Barclays Pays £113 Million Tax, £2800 Million Bonuses
Immediate Plans Following My Election As LCA Leader
Who Is Secretly Working To Keep Pot Illegal – Big Pharma?
Horizon – Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?
Paradise Valley
The People Have Spoken. Mubarak Must Go.
This Man Isn’t A Scientist. He’s A Prohibition Propagandist.
Bringing Cannabis Back Into The Medicine Cabinet
This Vile Punk Needs To Be Stripped Of His Arrogance, His Dignity And His Title!
Banking Cancer
PM MP
This Absurd Waste Of Police Time And Resources
Legalise Cannabis Alliance To Fight Barnsley By-Election
The LCA Leadership Election
Cannabis: What’s The Harm? part 2
Gary Moore RIP
The Politics Of Cannabis
Legalise Cannabis Alliance Votes To Return To Politics
ISMOKE Magazine Issue 1
Essential
BBC News
Blair Supporter
HomeGrown Outlaw
I Smoke Herb
Paradise Valley
The Daily Telegraph
The Independent
The Mad Hatters
Tory Aardvark
What Would Clement Do?
Archives
February 2011 (31)
January 2011 (21)
December 2010 (20)
November 2010 (14)
October 2010 (25)
September 2010 (26)
August 2010 (29)
July 2010 (19)
June 2010 (22)
May 2010 (29)
April 2010 (16)
March 2010 (13)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (9)
November 2009 (10)
October 2009 (2)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (1)
June 2009 (9)
May 2009 (16)
April 2009 (9)
March 2009 (9)
February 2009 (4)
January 2009 (8)
November 2008 (11)
October 2008 (14)
August 2008 (7)
July 2008 (17)
June 2008 (13)
Tags
Afghanistan alcohol America BBC Britain British cannabis cocaine corrupt crime David Cameron dog Dorset drugs evil Gordon Brown government Home Office Ian Tomlinson integrity Israel James Brokenshire justice Labour medicinal cannabis medicine minister misinformation MP Nick Clegg peter reynolds police politician prime minister prohibition propaganda regulation scandal Sutton Poyntz Tory truth UK walking war on drugs Weymouth
NetworkedBlogs
Blog:
Peter Reynolds
Topics:
politics, cannabis
Follow my blog
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: The Journalist v1.9 by Lucian E. Marin.
Send to Email Address
Your Name
Your Email Address
Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment