Can Cannabis Cure Peter Reynolds?

August 26, 2012

in Activism, Featured Articles

Peter Reynolds campaigning in the Corby by-electionSo last week, NORML UK published a testimonial from someone who had been using cannabis oil to treat his cancer, which had suddenly gone into remission. Our contributor had titled it “Cannabis Cures Cancer!”, which proved very controversial among our membership. To avoid confusion, the title was changed to “Cannabis Cured My Cancer”. That worked for most people. But not Peter Reynolds, who published an article on the CLEAR – Cannabis Law Reform website called, “Two Cautionary Tales For The Cannabis Campaign” – the first cautionary tale being about us.


A well known cannabis evangelist has been promoting his latest efforts in the manufacture of cannabis oil which he has christened pretentiously as “RSO”, an abbreviation for Rick Simpson oil.  While there is some exciting anecdotal evidence around the use of cannabis oil and a lot of good science that supports the theoretical possibility of its effectiveness, claiming that cannabis cures cancer is irresponsible and extremely cruel both to those who have cancer and their families.  It’s also very probably a criminal offence under the Cancer Act 1939 – a crime that has very real victims who deserve protection from such charlatans and confidence tricksters.

This is yet another example of how cannabis campaigners regularly sabotage their own efforts.  There is overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of cannabis as medicine and this sort of wild exaggeration, overclaiming and behaving like snake oil salesmen does nothing but damage our cause.


Heavy stuff. “Criminal”. “Fools”. “Snake oil salesmen”. “Charlatans and confidence tricksters”. Such are what Peter Reynolds thinks of people who claims cannabis cures cancer.

I have to say, I think that this statement might have a little more weight and be less rooted in sour grapes if it weren’t for the fact that CLEAR’s own leaflet says on the second page, “Cannabis oil is now proven to cure skin cancer.”




If posting a cancer sufferer’s testimony regarding his use of cannabis oil is “probably criminal”, what would that make putting a direct claim that cannabis cures skin cancer? 

And it’s not as if this point was not raised when the leaflet was first written, and 30,000 of them printed. On Peter Reynolds’ own blog, Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation and general good egg, warned:


Aside from any other observations I have a major concern about the claim that ‘cannabis oil is proven to cure skin cancer’. Thats a big claim, one that simply lacks credibility and isnt not supported by a credible reference. Overclaiming on the medical issue like that may ultimately undermine your credibility in the debate. Making unsupported claims for cancer cures is also potentially illegal under the cancer act so leaves you vulnerable (albeit you arent selling anything).


Including an actual warning about the Cancer Act 1939! Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Of course, this didn’t stop Peter Reynolds:


I’m sorry but you’re wrong on this. A couple of months ago I wouldn’t have made the claim but the evidence has now been published.


Steve tried again, and Peter Reynolds responded again. Well, you read it:

“I am content that the claim that cannabis (can) cure skin cancer is more than fair. It is a fact.” – Peter Reynolds, 2011. Just to make sure you got that.


These leaflets containing this “irresponsible and extremely cruel” claim that cannabis cures cancer has also been flung up and down the country in the last year:

“Cannabis cures cancer, sir?”


If you look under the camera boom, you can see a fuzzy me.

on the streets…












at events…








“I was gathering evidence that there had been a transgression of the Cancer Act 1939…”


to policemen…















“Cannabis cures skin cancer? What snake oil salesman wrote this?”


to Peter Hitchens…














Cannabis. Cancer. You get the picture.


and also me.











But that’s just a leaflet. It’s not like Peter Reynolds has, say, accused Cancer Research UK of conspiring with pharmaceutical companies to hide the fact that cannabis cures cancer:


I think the phrase is “Misleading, inaccurate, and criminal”?


Admittedly though, this is really like comparing apples and oranges. CLEAR has only produced a leaflet claiming that cannabis cures cancer, it’s not like they’ve directed people to the testimonial of a former cancer sufferer who credits cannabis as their cure. They’ve not done that – this year. Did in 2011, though:



But that *was* last year. It’s not like Peter Reynolds published an article on the CLEAR website in January 2012 telling people to read Granny’s list, a list of studies of medical cannabis that contains thirty pages of studies showing cannabis might cure cancer. It’s not like Victor Hamilton published a document on the CLEAR website in February 2012, part of which stated cannabis was a treatment for cancer (pg 24) (actually, Victor was quoted approvingly saying the same thing on Peter Reynolds’ personal blog in 2010). It’s not like Disqux Cannabis guestposted this in July:


Charlatan! Misleader!


Or Alyx Kerr wrote this three weeks ago:

The rest of the article is about the importance of eating raw cannabis, btw. Each to their own.


To be fair, saying that cannabis cures cancer is a slightly different from saying that cannabis kills cancer cells. We know this because Peter Reynolds says so. Well, 2012 Peter:


2011 Peter has an entirely different opinion.


But, to be fair, that was two days ago. It’s not like, right now, as of the very second that I am writing these words, CLEAR is hosting a documentary about how cannabis cures cancer in their video library:



…ok, I give up. What gives, CLEAR?

So, what can we conclude from this, besides the fact that Peter Reynolds/CLEAR obviously believes cannabis cures cancer and has promoted this idea in their literature, on their website, and while campaigning? Apparently that Peter Reynolds hates other cannabis groups so much that he’s willing to ignore the evidence he’s read (and tells others to read), the articles he’s written (and publishes by others), and his own beliefs (that he’s set down in official party literature), in order to attack them for publishing the story of a cancer sufferer. I’d say I was surprised, but I’m not.


UPDATE: Four hours after this article went up, the leaflet in question, and references to it were removed from the CLEAR website. Guess even Peter Reynolds couldn’t explain away that one.


Subscribe to via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

{ 101 comments… read them below or add one }

Tevion August 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm

He’s the only human (i use the term human loosely) I know of who has his anus fixed firmly to his face but alas even this fails to explain fully the mess running down his chin.


jim August 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

You just cant make this stuff up it would be comedy gold if it weren’t such a serious subject.
He has gotta be either mentally ill or he is running some sort of underhanded smear campaign.


Abdul Abdullah August 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Even cannabis can’t cure that bigoted, racist and homophobic excuse for a human being I’m afraid.

Excellent article Sarah and no doubt Reynolds can’t keep track of everything he says, I see this a lot with people who are alcohol dependant. He was slurring his words the other morning during that radio interview, it is not good.


Sarah Martin August 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm

I’ve been at this long enough to know it’s better to have a claim that’s backed by scientific study. Nobody of any influence will take you seriously otherwise. Thanks to Sarah, I’m finding Peter seriously funny! :)


Stuart Wyatt August 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Thank you for this Sarah! Great work as always!

Once again, Peter Reynolds has been exposed for being the lying, inconsistent two-faced idiot that he is. I suppose when you have an alcoholic convicted fraudster running the show, he can’t remember what he said this time last week let alone last year.


Kristin August 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Strange that someone who describes himself as a libertarian lauds and threatens with the “big government” Cancer Act. Isn’t that a little nanny state, Reynolds?


Glyn August 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm

An excellent article yet again Sarah,and much kudos to you for exposing the charlatan Reynolds.As someone else mentioned ,one would almost think he is running a smear campaign against folks that are actually active in the campaign to legalise cannabis….Delboy said it best…”What a plonker”….that just about sums him and his cohorts at cLEAR up..inept idiots…


Steve August 26, 2012 at 8:57 pm

Peter Reynolds said he would transform the old LCA and he has but in a really bad way . He allegedly dips into CLEARS funds that is collected off members to fund his life style then when simply asked to prove he hasn’t by publishing receipts he goes on the war path but when it all dies down he sends out emails begging members for cash . He has banned people from the CLEAR site for just disagreeing with what he says and has even went as far as throwing personal insults on his blog including disgusting childish and rather unprofessional comments aimed at you Sarah . If the members at CLEAR had any sence they would have already asked him to leave but from the way CLEAR going it won’t be around for much longer with a proven racist homophobic alcoholic incharge because who in their right mind would take him seriously in a proper debate ? Especially when he gets cornered by someone who is against cannabis and instead off resorting to the proven facts he always states the cannabis vs peanuts argument . It’s just funny watching him contradicting himself all the time and the way he is more interested in attacking other cannabis groups than actually doing his job and fighting for change in the law . But the best one for me was when he was pictured last year walking around a cannabis rally smoking weed then now claims that clear doesn’t do rallies and smoking cannabis in public at rallies is a bad idea and bad for image . But we all know he doesn’t go to rallies or public events now because he has pissed that many people off online he is not welcome at rallies and is terrified off getting a proper kicking if he showed his face .


sarah August 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Thanks Steve, I have personally always found it baffling that Peter Reynolds has condemned Winston Matthews and Clark French for posting pictures of themselves using and enjoying cannabis when he used to regularly post pictures of various different strains of cannabis and lecture people on their effects on his Facebook. Apparently as long as you’re not in the photo it’s ok.


Stuart Wyatt August 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

I find it hilarious that Peter Reynolds refused to take down the leaflets after Clark French and Des Humphrey withdrew their permission for their names and pictures to be used, yet 4 hours after being exposed as a hypocrite and a liar, he has silently taken down the CLEAR leaflet from the main CLEAR site.


Awake August 26, 2012 at 10:54 pm

How can anyone take anything this man says seriously after he declared cannabis had effectively been decriminalised in the UK?


PaxDelta - Facebook -> Paul Naughton August 27, 2012 at 12:31 am

After a leave of absence, partly due to all the CLeaR infighting last year as much as other wind ups in the real world, was on catchup this past 2 weeks.

He’s lost my support and i unfriended him a while earlier today, CLeaR is next if he stays.

As Frank said when i called him agent provocateur, “right words” he said, yeah, looks like that from every angle i can see now, ay.

He can’t say i never supported him etc, in fact i overlooked a lot i saw him do which would have had me ignoring somebody completely, like, forever, no more.



Alun Buffry August 27, 2012 at 9:27 am

Reynolds and his side-lick Derek Williams are clearly out to try to discredit and insult every true cannabis activist and healer of the last decade – from my point of view if I get cancer I WILL TRY to cure and presumably Williams and Reynolds will not. One thing I know is that nothing works for everyone, another I know is that cannabis oil is non-toxic in practical terms, so it is worth a try, it can do no harm.

I dread the thought that anyone will listen to them and not try the cure if they are able to – and every death be upon those two trouble-makers.

THEY OUGHT to be focussing on changing the law to enable medicinal cannabis in all forms to be easily available to all in need, not campaigning against activists.
Shame be upon them both and all that follow them or their words.

Derek Williams has foolishly said that because cannabis oil is not soluble in water then it cannot work through swallowing. Strangely how much of other oils that are also water-insoluble are said to be essential in our foods.

So no point in cod-live oils, olive oils ….

What Williams and Reynolds have failed to realise is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And that just because the evidence does not come from scientists does not mean that it is not valuable evidence.

What i find strange is that whilst the two buffoons seemingly joined by Transform, accuse the Government of deceit because the Government denies the medicinal values of cannabis, they also turn against campaigners that claim some medicinal uses – they accept some uses yet reject others and this is serious as they words could bring unnecessary or premature death to anyone listening to them.


sarah August 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Actually, Peter Reynolds had a conversation with Mark Heinrich yesterday in which he said that if he had cancer, cannabis would be the first thing that he treated it with. One would think that someone with that much belief in the power of cannabis to cure cancer would not then be telling the pioneers of the treatment he would presumably be using that they are “irresponsible”.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm

The truth is of course I raised the question of the non-soluble nature of cannabis oil as a question and it is a valid question.

The reason I did so is that anyone who has ever ingested cannabis (hashcakes etc) knows from experience that dissolving the oils in digestable fats increases the potency of the cannabis greatly over simply chewing the hash and swallowing it.

Yes, swallowing chewed hash does work – the chewing is important of course because it increases the surface area and so aids the process – but cooking into cakes etc works very much better.

The reason you get very stoned off much smaller amounts of cannabis prepared properly is because a greater proportion of the avaiable THC etc reaches the bloodstream.

Getting the THC etc into the bloodstream is the aim of medical use as well as recreational, unless it gets into the bloodstream nothing can happen.

The claim made in the post is that 60grms of oil will cure cancer, now that’s a very specific dosage claim. If the method of administration is suspect, then so is the dose the patient will get and frankly so is the whole claim.

Sadly the responce I got to my question on NORML-UK was infantile and – from Jeff – simply showed his lack of understanding of what a solvent is. I actually hope there is a good explaination as to how this works, I would dearly love this to be true, but I didn’t get one from NORML-UK and I still haven’t had one.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Derek, I think you need to understand that RSO is NOT hash.

You also need to stop mistaking the process from turning plant matter into cannabutter as having anything to do with RSO. RSO is an incredibly pure product which the body can metabolise without having to be binded to fats.

People have been telling you this for days now, yet you still won’t listen. Why is that? Is your point scoring against NORML-UK and people who have said nasty things about you/Clear/Reynolds more important than the facts regarding RSO?


Derek August 27, 2012 at 4:45 pm


You need to learn what cannabis oil actually is.

Hash – the plant resin – contains the oil, but with a large amount of “impurities” – vegetable matter etc. The extraction process simply removes the oils from the hash leaving the pure cannabis oil. The profile of cannabinoids in the oil is (or should be) the same as in the original resin, but simply more concentrated.

THC is not water soluble, that is a fact.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm

but if the oil is metabloised in the stomach it will be useless. It needs to enter the bloodstream as unmetabolised THC etc doesn’t it not?


h August 27, 2012 at 10:17 am

Very good – not sure why you have a quote there from Alyx – a 16year old american who is very confused and misinformed.


sarah August 27, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Well, you’d have to ask CLEAR to be honest. I personally wouldn’t drink eau de cannabis, seems like a massive waste to me.


ingo August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am

Why is Transform transfixed by this bullying beggar? Have they no sense to align themselves with him, after seeing what has happened during the last two years? How can they support that someone belittles users and calls them names. I Reynolds is a spook, plant, why else can nobody find out about his past? does this mean we also have to look at Transform with different eyes?
Derek is scared, conformist and misleading as well, as long as I knew him he’s complying, because he does not want to stick above the parapet due to his work. Spooks united!


PaxDelta - Facebook -> Paul Naughton August 27, 2012 at 11:55 am

May be a different definition of spook you’re using Ingo bruv.

But spook is a term for national security operatives, indeed their ID is removed from public knowledge putting it basically, because of the work they do for state, i doubt Reynolds is a spook, nothing what so ever to do with military intelligence etc.

Military Intelligence, whatever sections, don’t deserve being insulted by being likened to Reynolds, ay.

Peace. : )


sarah August 27, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Could people not trash Transform? Steve’s comment was from a year ago before Peter Reynolds really got going, and he was simply saying that to say that cannabis cures skin cancer based on a single study was a bad idea, and potentially illegal. That’s different from denying that cannabis cures cancer at all.

Transform have since had nothing to do with CLEAR in 2012, they’ve been very supportive to me, and as far as I’m aware their staff hold as low a opinion of Peter Reynolds as everyone else in the drug law reform world.


ingo August 27, 2012 at 11:45 am

good article sarah, thank you.


terri August 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm

he just wants his name in the lime light for being the ONE that gets legislation changed. when will he realise that fight cannabis prohibition is a ;) joint effort ?? i am so glad that NORMLUK has been formed maybe this is a step in the right direction. as for his constant attacks to other activists its disgraceful. rick simpsons actions are seen worldwide through the internet. what is it that PR…ICK is doing exactly ?


Derek August 27, 2012 at 2:22 pm


As you noted

UPDATE: Four hours after this article went up, the leaflet in question, and references to it were removed from the CLEAR website. Guess even Peter Reynolds couldn’t explain away that one.

PR doesn’t have to explain it, I as website editor deleted the links and the leaflet, because you drew my attention to it not via this blog, but on FB. I have also removed it from the CLEAR FB page, thanks for the heads up.

Actually the leaflet was substantially removed some time ago, we had agreed to drop it following objections from some people featured on it. There were however multiple copies on the site and I missed one. If you find any more, do let me know about it.

Although the claim onthe leaflet was specific and not a general claim of a cancer cure, unlike you I take this issue of making claims about a cure for cannabis seriously, not just because of the cancer act law but because of the desperate nature of cancer. This is why I was eager to get an answer to my question regarding the method of administration Jeff described in his blog on NORML-UK. The nature of the replies and the lack of any kind of proper moderation to keep the discussion on subject does not reflect well on NORML-UK. I would hope that you and NORML-UK would join my call for a proper series of tests, carried out in controlled conditions.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm

What a load a twaddle Derek. Peter Reynolds refused to remove the leaflets, despite repeated requests from Des Humphrey and Clark French. Mr Reynolds even went so far as to repost them a number of times on the CLEAR wall after he was requested to take them down. Your cognitive dissonance and selective bias is staggering, and with it, you have proven once again what a deceitful, two-faced, attention-seeking, irrelevant idiot you are.

Have you ever considered working with the UK cannabis community one of these days, instead of working against them?


Derek August 27, 2012 at 4:39 pm


Since I became website editor again these leaflets have been taken offline, although clearly I missed some copies. It was a descision taken at an exec meeting earlier this year.

It’s a pity you have to resort to such childish insults, it debases any case you may have had.


BrainyBrian August 27, 2012 at 7:28 pm

NORML UK is a credible organisation, so I doubt they would be joining any calls made by representatives of CLEAR.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm

Such as calling for proper tests to see if cannabis oil cures cancer?

Ho hum…


Steve August 29, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Derek – if you are now in control off the clear web site and it’s FB page are you going to unban all those people who were banned by PR for no reason ? He even banned people from the clear site who had disagreements with him on his private FB page . So if you are now in control are people going to be allowed to have their view heard or are you going to stick with PR and ban people who disagree with you ?


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm

Uneducated self appointed “cannabis community members” who claim that cancer “is” cured by cannabis need to do their homework.Are cancer deaths lower in countries where weed is available and unrestricted as in holland? Does a countrys cannabis consumption have a direct correllation with the incidence of cancers? Of course not.Faith healers have more anecdotal evidence of cancer cures.Make cannabis freely available to all and that way everybody benefits.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm

How dare you talk about your leader Peter Reynolds like that Graham!


rhys August 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Did you even read the article graham? Blows the ukcia ‘critique’ Clearly out of the water and exposes the hypocrisy rife in the cannabis law reform group. “make cannabis free for all” doesn’t sound much like the tax and regulate proposal your leader seems intent on. you can’t even sing from the same hymnsheet anymore. clear and the ukcia are beginning to look like petulant schoolkids with their ‘critique’s’. I mean even your ‘critique’ of normluk was taken down by derek and he seems to be deleting a few of peter’s comments lately, hardly the actions of a campaign that repeatedly claims to represent the largest amount of cannabis users in britain..


Derek August 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm

I’m glad you’re reading my blog so avidly Rhys to have notice my moderation of comments. That’s because I’m keeping it on subject and not letting it get swamped by arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.

If my point about the efficiency of the method of administration of the oil can’t be answered with a solid scientific logic I’m afraid the whole claim is flawed. What a pity for such a potentially wonderful thing as a cure for cancer to be undermined by an arrogant disregard for such a basic point.

So far I’ve been told that the oil doesn’t need to be dissolved in some kind of digestable fat “because it’s been extracted with a SOLVENT” and now it doesn’t need it because it’s “an incredibly pure product which the body can metabolise without having to be binded to fats.” You’ve really got to try harder.


rhys August 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm

did you not read sarah’s article derek? If you did then you missed the point!This isn’t about whether cannabis cures cancer. It’s about the hypocrisy of your’s and clears article’s. As for your reply it shows how much notice you seem to be taking of your your blog, before i decided it was an exercise in futility posting on your blog I’d already posted comments about how the stomach, small intestine and duodenum work. you still didnt get it. Cannabis oil when digested doesnt need to bind to an oil, vegetable matter does but cannabis oil is already in a solvent form so the enzymes/acid from the duodenum begin breaking down the oil before they reach the stomach, when it reaches the stomach it still gets digested, the oil is already decarboxylated so the THCA has already been turned into its psychoactive molecule delta 9 tetrahydrocannibinol, but any oil is digested by stomach enzymes/acid . taking oil this way builds your tolerence up very quickly so a gram a day of it would’nt be too overwhelming after a couple of days, and if taken before bed or with food the major effects can be lessened.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm

It’s pointless trying to debate with Derek. He cherry picks what he wants to hear, and ignores anything which doesn’t fit in with his cognitive dissonance. He’s always done this. He’s spent over a decade trying to tie up activists in circular pedantic arguments, and shit-stirring wherever he goes. He’s well known for it.

Derek Williams is nothing more than a troll. Peter Reynolds gives Derek an illusion of authority and power, and without it (as displayed when he temporarily resigned from CLEAR) Derek finds that nobody listens to him.

The only reason why he writes blog posts criticising activists and groups is for attention, and nothing else. He used to do the same thing against the LCA back in the day. He’s also come to uk420 many times seeking attention in his drama-queen, argumentative and childlike ways.

Derek supports and defends Peter Reynolds because he knows that people will always confront Mr Reynolds online, thus it gives Derek people to talk to.

Without doing what Derek does, he would be nothing more than a sad and lonely old man… moreso…


Derek August 27, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Rhys If you present an argument in a less patronising and agressive manner I’m all ears. You don’t seem to understand – or perhaps want to understand – that I am very keen to find an answer to my question.

Thing is if the oil is digested it will be broken down, that isn’t wehat you want to happen. I’ve lifted this explaination from a forum which is written in palin english

“Basically, the digestive juices in the stomach and duodenum are the acids that degrade THC the most. By buffering that in fat, the THC gets past that part and reaches the rest of the small intestine, where it is absorbed into the bloodstream instead of being broken down”.

Rather than building up a tolerance to the high levels of THC, it sounds like it’s being broken down and wasted

? <<< note that question mark. I don't know the answer to these points, but when I checked your account I don't find evidence to support it.

Had you not deleted your comments before I had a real chance to read them properly last night we could have discussed this in a civilised manner.


rhys August 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm

think your right stuart, i’ve explained above about the cannabis oil being digested yet he posts a thread and misreads the comment he posted. the comment is about drinking tincture compared to using oil.
here’s a link, it explains how the stomach works Derek as it seems to be so difficult to understand.

everything needs to be broken down to be absorbed into the bloodstream so how is it being wasted?


Derek August 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Because you don’t want to break the THC down into its metabolites before it gets into the blood Ryhs, that’s my sticking point, you specifically don’t want to digest it. If it is broken down it won’t work. To be effective you need to get either the THC-A or THC (either is fine for cancer treatment apprently) into the blood without any change to the molecules.


Alun Buffry August 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Mr Singh / Reynolds – this claim is about the ingestion of hash oil as a cure for cancer, not smoking or eating hash.

Mr Williams for sure the potency of hash when eaten increases if it is first dissolved in OIL / butter.

Hash oil IS OIL


Steve September 7, 2012 at 9:38 am

If I remember right nobody had hear of you manrag a year ago but when everyone jumped ship at clear you poped in out of nowhere what education do you have regarding cannabis because I see you writing a lot of stuff about it and I reckon the only education you have on cannabis is that you smoke it .


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm

>>>Stuartwyatt…your appetite for arguing with your intellectual superiors remains undiminished as usual.You seem to consistently place yourself on the quiff of the lunatic fringe.Its why you are so popular and and your views are so well respected.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm

>>> Graham Smith. Your appetite for blindly defending your Dear Leader’s racism, homophobia, sexism, alcoholism, narcism, hypocrisy, ignorance and his argumentative arrogance remains undiminished as usual. You seem to constantly place yourself at the side of a convicted fraudster and proven liar. It is why you are so unpopular, and your views are at best laughed at.


BrainyBrian August 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm

Naturally the Marhog defends his Fuhrer, as he holds the same offensive right wing views. Did you know the Marhog even once said he wouldn’t care if “Peter Reynolds gassed the Jews”? Despicable!

The fact Peter Reynolds has to take comfort from messages of support from the most ugly and revolting of trolls the Internet has to offer says it all really.

Marhog, fuck off, nobody here cares what you have to say or for your disgusting views.


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm



rhys August 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Not worth a read.thats 2 minutes i’ll never get back.


Glyn August 28, 2012 at 12:15 am

Are you posting mindless drivel again Manrag…I seriously doubt anybody reading this thread will bother to check your link out as they are probably very clued up by now that cLEAR is run and supported by inept idiots like you,Dwerek and Reynolds as has been proven in the last 9 months time and time again.


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 5:06 pm

This would make a worthwhile debate if it wasnt made into an attack reynolds campaign.Sarah [crude insult that doesn’t even mean anything] dug up an article in which PR moaned about rude motorists in a Hertfordshire village which was years older than his joining Clear and then tried to say that anyone holding such views about village traffic could not be trusted to opinionate about cannabis ?????So here we have a [tsk tsk] campaigner who cannot read the date on an article. Who champions people who know better than oncologists.If your child succumbed to cancer would you take them to the hospital of start boiling phoenix tears up in the kitchen?


rhys August 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm

down shep!


mr bilson August 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm

It is a shame that CLEAR/PR continue to muddy the waters of cannabis information, and continues to alienate cannabis users, and to divide the cannabis community, attracting intolerant people who claim to support cannabis activism. It is a shame CLEAR has become UNCLEAR, and does not unite cannabis users. We need to be united in our demand for an end to cannabis prohibition, prosecution, persecution, and an immediate release of all those prisoners throughout the world incarcerated because of a plant. I don’t believe PR is genuine, and believe he should be ignored, deprived of the attention he craves, he will wilt, as his opinion will have no importance. It is inevitable cannabis shall be free, PR is not needed for this to happen, it needs the will of the people, tyranny always crumbles. Many voices all calling for the right t
o use cannabis as medicince or recreation (without moral judgment or scorn). As an ex member of CLEAR (I resigned cos of PR), I urge the many members of CLEAR to get rid of PR, which stands for Political Repression, and replace him with a more suitable candidate, who will unite, and truly represent the tolerant and peaceful partakers of pot in the UK.

A member of the Pothead’s Union.


Kassy Fatooh August 27, 2012 at 6:49 pm

How is it pretentious to refer to the oil as RSO or Rick Simpson Oil? True, Simpson himself humbly calls it not by his own name but Phoenix Tears, but many patients and advocates use the name RSO for it and it’s hardly pretentious for the “well-known cannabis evangelist” in question to use that name for it.

Just one more example of Reynolds latching on to any little thing, or any little nothing, to criticize. It’s sad to see the divisiveness he tries to insert into cannabis campaigning – but always a delight to see his bizarre tactics exposed, and a delight as well to see the growing numbers of campaigners dismissing him.

Enjoy life on the margins, Reynolds. We’re moving forward without you. The mounting evidence and acceptance for cannabis make it harder than ever for you to confuse and divide supporters.


rhys August 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm

silence is golden. and it speaks volumes……


sarah August 27, 2012 at 7:04 pm

This conversation is rapidly turning into a massive slanging match and I would ask people to stop, now, or I will start editing comments. Name-calling is boring to read and achieves nothing.

Derek, I take the issue of cannabis curing cancer very seriously, which is why I don’t write articles condemning serious cannabis activists who claim it does as irresponsible law-breakers. I also don’t berate CANCER SUFFERERS as having no idea what they’re talking about when they say that cannabis helps them recover. So, please, take this lesson, and if CLEAR disagree with a particular group’s take on something, say so politely, or stay silent. This article is about hypocrisy, not cancer. I also simply don’t know the answer to your THC solubility question that you keep bringing up, which is why I’ve stayed silent on the subject.

Maharg, your comments regarding the Bovingdon article are bizarre, because I didn’t write it or have anything to do with it, it was written by a Watford journalist whose name is at the top. At the bottom, if you’ve read it, is Peter Reynolds who willingly gave said Watford journalist a quote saying that he stood by everything he had said about the people in Bovingdon and then trashing them some more. It’s an amazing exercise in terrible judgment. So the fact that the original article was years old is irrelevant, because Peter Reynolds specifically said that his comments were still valid. So I don’t know why you keep pushing this issue. Please desist from insulting me or your comments will be edited some more.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Hi Sarah

I agree this name calling is boring and I would say [moderated]. I would be more than happy if you would moderate your forums to prevent it.

I also take this issue seriously, which is why I want to sort out this THC absorbtion issue. Honestly, all I wanted to do was to debate things, I never wanted an argument. See, I don’t simply buy into anything that contradicts what I already know. As I’ve said, if I get an answer I’ll be more than happy, but every attempt seems to throw up more confusion (not to mention bucket loads of personal insults).

If my point about THC absorbtion (which is seemingly a better way to put it) is correct then you whole article is [moderated] I’m afraid.

I replied to the thread because I was the one who took the leaflet down because it shouldn’t have been there, you seemed to think it was PR reacting to your blog. You told me about the copy on the website via FB and Rhys pointed me to the one on FB. The claim of cannabis being a treament for skin cancer on the leaflet though was referenced to an authoritative source apparently, although I haven’t checked it out yet. If it is, then I wouldn’t have aproblem with that and it wouldn’t be the same as your situation at all.

As regards the cancer law, I didn’t write it. I hope your lawyers are good enough to defend you should it be needed. And no, that isn’t a threat.


sarah August 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm

I issued a warning, and the next six comments from everyone on all sides were free from insults. Until you decided to come up with “[moderated]” and “[moderated]”. Nice one, Derek. Shall I moderate it for you?

My article is not rubbish regardless of the THC issue because the point is that Peter Reynolds keeps condemning activists who believe that cannabis cures cancer while having said it himself and CLEAR repeatedly publishing people who think the same as our writers. Whether THC is soluble or not doesn’t change that in the slightest. You are welcome to keep talking about, but not being interested in chemistry, my eyes have simply brushed over every paragraph you’ve written about it.

As regards the leaflet issue, you know the situation, I won’t respond to your efforts to spin it favourably.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm

Sarah, nobody has questioned the fact that cannabis compounds can treat cancer – even to the point of curing it. What I’m questioning is your faith in and promotion of a method of taking the medicine that as far as I can tell simply will not work, or at least will not work very efficiently.

I’m grateful to Rhys for his explaination of how the THC will be digested, but that just throws up the fact that having been digested and broken down in the way he describes, it will no longer work. The THC etc has to be absorbed directly and unmodified into the blood.

This is at the heart of PR comments and his attack on you guys – although he has his style which is not mine he is essentially correct. You are promoting a method of treatment which you admit you don’t understand but just believe to be true. Worse, when someone does come along and question it they get a mass of abuse.

As I said, I’m not trying to pick a fight, honest. There is no spin on what happened to the leaflet, it’s exactly as I described.


rhys August 27, 2012 at 8:48 pm

THC and THCA are absorbed in liquid form via the mucus membranes Derek, before they get to the stomach and also in the stomach,Digestion of some oils/fats can begin in the mouth where lingual lipase breaks down some short chain lipids into diglycerides. The presence of oils/fat in the small intestine produces hormones that stimulate the release of pancreatic lipase from the pancreas and bile from the liver for breakdown of fats into fatty acids.


sarah August 27, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Derek, I really don’t know what I can say to you. I’ve not said anything at all on how one should or should not use cannabis oil. I’ve got no opinion on the subject right now. I’ve never proffered one.

If you’re objecting to Dave’s article, then this is a conversation that you need to have with Jeff, or Rick Simpson and Phoenix Tears if Jeff won’t talk to you, because I don’t know the answer and it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t know how modafinil works in my brain but I still tried it because it worked for people I know, and it’s working for me.

You can say that the point of issue is the THC absorption if you like, but that was the subject of your article, not Peter Reynolds’. His was on the horrible cruelty of saying that cannabis cures cancer and how anyone who says so is a charlatan. In fact he had an entire conversation with the people behind Phoenix Tears on the same theme without realising who they were, so I know that that was what he meant. I haven’t written anything on your article, and I don’t intend to.


Derek August 27, 2012 at 9:47 pm

Sarah, the thing is your organisation published this story, you (collectively) are therefore responsible for it and the claims it makes.

You (NORML-UK) didn’t check the methodolgy described or question any of the claims made, not only that but you don’t even seem to understand why the criticism I’m making is important. That’s what I’m objecting to and, in his own sweet and jolly way as far as I can see, so was PR, although I wouldn’t presume to speak for him.

Despite this lack of oversight in what you publish you still saw fit to write yet another attack on PR. Seriously, you should get your own house in order first.


sarah August 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm

We made it very clear that Dave was telling his own story. Dave said that he used cannabis oil, and that he thinks it cured him of cancer. Being as the only way we’re going to get these things tested is by talking about them loudly, we gave him a platform by which to do so. I suppose we could “call” for clinical tests, but that in itself is a meaningless action.

Whether you personally think that the means by which Dave used cannabis validates his belief or not does not reflect on NORML UK. If we put out a press release saying that you should directly swallow cannabis oil to cure yourself of cancer, you would be entirely entitled to a) suggest we were breaking the law, and b) question the science behind our proposed method. But if you want to write formally to us to ask us our stance on THC absorption, I imagine that we’re only going to write to Phoenix Tears/Jeff and ask them the answer.

The fact is Peter Reynolds, and most of CLEAR’s membership, and probably you, think that cannabis cures cancer. The fact that you published an article attacking us for publishing the story of a guy, who actually had cancer, and who was willing to say so, when your own leaflet made the same claim and then had the nerve to criticise me for pointing this out is probably a very good summary for explaining why no-one in the drug policy world will talk to your party.

Peter Reynolds, for his part suggested a). I pointed out the hypocrisy of denigrating people for saying things that he has not only said himself, but actually denigrated people for, for criticising his decision to do so. If you do not want a constant stream of bad news stories for your group (and bear in mind that I’m not even writing most of them), and this is genuine advice, then you should require Peter to put his articles past you first, because he seems to have no reasoned judgement of his own, (unless you are already doing so and genuinely thought that article was somehow helping “the cause”, in which case shame on you). Honestly, that Bovingdon story? What on earth was he thinking? Indeed, what is going on in your party that any of you could think it a good idea to announce an entire campaign against synthetic cannabinoids and destroy any chance of gaining/retaining the support you once had from the hundreds of head shops in the UK so just so Peter Reynolds can pursue his petty vendettas?

I have zero interest in anything CLEAR does except when it takes it upon itself to denigrate me, my groups, or my friends. But in any case, it simply does not make strategic sense for you to be doing any of these things if you are genuinely trying to make a difference to cannabis laws. How has it benefited CLEAR at all to have Peter Reynolds talk about any of this stuff and alienate even more cannabis activists (this time from afar afield as Australia)? Has this spat fulfilled your mission statement? I understand that for the sake of damage control, you have to come over here and tell me the point of my own article, but the fact is you shouldn’t be having to do this at all, it should never have been possible for me to publish it in the first place. Honestly, I don’t see how you envision your party going forward when all you ever seem to do is insult other cannabis groups and people and call it “work”. Even if you don’t agree with others in the movement, you don’t have to go out of your way to call them “crazy stoners”. It’s just mad.


Jeff Ditchfield August 27, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Derek, you have no understanding of cannabis pharmacology and as usual you are attempting to get involved with things beyond your comprehension. You are attempting to distract people away from your pathetic trolling

Please stop ignoring the question Derek, why did you tell people on uk420 that I was an undercover policeman? what did you and Reynolds hope to get out of that preposterous claim, it sounds like one of Reynold’s bright ideas (aren’t they all when he’s pissed) but why did you get involved, why did you do that on uk420 Derek?


Derek August 27, 2012 at 7:50 pm

Jeff, with respect my knowledge of organic chemistry is pretty good although I say so myself, yours based on your replies so far is somewhat lacking. My degree wasn’t in chemistry, but it was a science subject (Environmental Sciences UEA) which had a major chemistry element, so don’t worry about discussing complicated issues with me, I can handle it.

As regards my suspicions about you I mentioned that in confidence, not on the forum. I do find it odd even now that you have teamed up with people you were scathing about a couple of years ago.


Jeff Ditchfield August 27, 2012 at 8:23 pm

[You and Peter Reynolds have no redeeming features in my eyes], you are both non-entities and thanks to the cannabis community you have both been side-lined and isolated

It is amazing that Reynolds and you could take an organisation like the LCA and turn it into something that was less popular and had less influence, lol many MP’s supported the LCA and they’ve all dropped CLEAR because of the racism and homophobia of your leader

Next time we meet at a function I’ll happily ‘discuss’ your attempts to imply that I am a policeman Derek and it will be a very blunt and direct argument, you can trust me on that :)


Derek August 27, 2012 at 8:40 pm

I look forward to it Jeff, I guess that will happen quite soon – HASC meeting?

See you there ;)


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 7:16 pm

It comes down to this…Any cancer treatment is worth billions to whoever brings it to market.The fact that nobody including GW Pharma have done so is indicative of the fact that it has yet to be proved. Rick Simpson and co know better? Failure to see the consummate stupidity of this argument brings into question the veracity of its supporters and provides ammo for the prohibitionist argument. Once cannabis is freely available these self appointed cannabis experts (of whom there are very few in Holland) can treat themselves and others anyway they like.


Stuart Wyatt August 27, 2012 at 7:28 pm

… or people can just grow their own cannabis, make their own RSO, and continue to heal and treat their conditions just as they are doing at the moment. Why do pharmaceutical companies have to be involved? Why does a billion pound market have to be created?

It comes down to this…Any cancer treatment is PRICELESS to whoever it brings relief or remission.


Alun Buffry August 28, 2012 at 8:46 am

what a ridiculous argument. my question to PR and derk is this: if the method of swallowing cannabis oil is ineffective as you suggest against the treatment of cancer – why is it that these people are claiming and showing evidence that since swallowing the oil, they seem to have been cured very rapidly and why do you think people are going to the trouble and risking their freedom to make it on a non-profit basis? DEREK are you saying that they have not been cured or that they are telling porkies?

As regards “proof”, well there are those of us that believe those that claim to BE the truth, and there are those that don’t and would rather wait until some Government authorises research and some company takes it on.

Do you think people should simply not take it until that day and how many of those that appear to have been saved may have died, do you think, given that they were often given a death sentence by doctors? And how many more – do you accept moral responsibility for discouraging them – and same question to Jeff – do you accept moral responsibility for providing them with or introducing them to oil?

Early this year a friend of mine made his own oil to treat skin cancer near his eye – whatever it was it healed within days and when he went for the biopsy that the hospital wanted to do, they said no trace, it must have been a cist. Is there any scientific evidence Derek to support that oil can cure either skin cancer or a cist?

Last week another chap I know used oil to treat moscitto bites and they healed rapidly. I wonder why – should people try that if there is no evidence?

Does anyone, especially Derk, remember when the claims that cannabis eased MS / pain first came out, back in the late 1980’s? There had been no research, no “evidence” from the medical / scientific community – yet people started using cannabis and some of them were getting positive results – THEN doctors and pharmacists got involved, got a license to do tests and research and production, which produced enough truth for most people, seemingly even you – then they started producing their expensive and highly profitable product Sativex, — do you want to wait and see that happen again.

Do you think there is any DANGER in people trying oil as a cancer cure?

Once again, there is a big difference to saying that one is not convinced due to lack of certain types of evidence and publicly saying that it does not work and dissing the likes of Rick Simpson.

Last questions: anecdotal evidence – for sure we cannot believe (it would not be wise to believe) every story, everything we are told, even when it comes from priests, doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers or even scientists.

But is there a situation where you think anecdotal evidence is worth considering?

Do you think that the Government should start some sort of research into these claims re oil and cancer – and, if so, which would seem sensible, why are you not pressurising them to do so instead of attacking those that are trying to save lives and defending an obvious bigot?

Your degree does not qualify you to talk chemistry. I have a degree in chemistry. It is a long way from biology, biochemistry or medicine, but enough to know you are not talking science, you are talking from the stance of stubborn opinion.

These statements from Reynolds have harmed his party even further, alienated even more people, and reached the point where I can only believe his is a fool or doing it deliberately to destroy the cause of freedom of choice – and I do not need any scientists to tell me that


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 7:18 pm

If your child succumbed to cancer would you take them to the hospital of start boiling phoenix tears up in the kitchen?


sarah August 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm

I would do both, seeing as both have proven health benefits whether cannabis totally cures cancer or not. I do not see this as an either/or.

As would Peter Reynolds, as he did in fact try to give cannabis to his father:


Alun Buffry August 28, 2012 at 8:50 am

In have recently lost three friends to cancer – one to prostrate, one to lung and one to stomach – and have another friend suffering with prostrate cancer.

Unfortunately none of them able to take oil – all went to hospital for treatment.

That’s an anecdote.

I read about cannabis oil curing cancer – and that many have now been cured.

They are anecdotes.

I have advised my friend that is now suffering with prostrate cancer to try to oil.

Have I done the right thing?


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 7:48 pm

If you would feed your own sick child the quantities of cannabis described in these dangerous articles Sarah then [I am unimpressed].


sarah August 27, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Peter Reynolds would:

For myself, I cannot tell you what I would or would do for my hypothetical sick child, but I imagine that when it comes to potentially life-threatening illnesses, as a parent you’ll try pretty much anything that won’t kill them. And cannabis, as we all know, has never killed anyone.


rhys August 27, 2012 at 7:57 pm

graham if your wife/partner/child had terminal cancer but was told there was nothing more chemo would do would you then try cannabis as an alternative?
or would you let them die just to prove some point?


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 8:14 pm

>>rhys Cannabis has such a wide ranging palliative effect and is as we all know harmless.If cannabis were as legal and available as alcohol who wouldnt give it to anybody suffering or in pain?


rhys August 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm

that didnt really answer my question graham, are you saying that the legality of it would stop you using it to treat a loved one?


mahargsmith August 27, 2012 at 9:03 pm

rhys here is the best evidence so far,,,


rhys August 27, 2012 at 9:41 pm

still you didnt answer my question graham? Would the legality of Cannabis stop you treating a loved one?


Jeff Ditchfield August 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm

I’ve just heard Sarah that NORML UK on facebook have gone from zero to over 10,000 Like’s in less than 3 months! That is fantastic news! Please pass on my congratulations to the rest of the Executive Committe,


Brian Colquhoun August 27, 2012 at 10:17 pm

Isn’t that wonderful news Jeff, my goodness 10,000 in three months wow. I guess the cannabis community have spoken!

~I think enough time has been wasted on certain trolls so I shall keep ignoring them, I urge others to do the same!


sarah August 27, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Right, I am going to bed, and tomorrow I am going to a funeral. I will therefore not be moderating or responding to comments until well after then.


Steve Rolles August 29, 2012 at 11:32 am

Hi – I’ve read the post above and skimmed the comments. Just to say, as me and Transform have been mentioned; Transform have largely steered clear of the medical cannabis issue, not because we are against medical cannabis, but rather because we have always focused specifically on policy around non-medical use of cannabis and other drugs. Although its not something we have put campaigning resources into, we are, of course, unhappy that research into medical uses of certain drugs used recreationally (including MDMA and various psychadelics) is stifled by drug war politics, and certainly dont want to see medical users crimianlised – supporting regulated markets as outlined in Blueprint.

I personally have no expertise in the medical cannabis issue; my comment (typos and all) on Peter’s blog was simply and specifically a concern about the phrase ‘cannabis oil is proven to cure skin cancer’. It doesnt reflect any wider commentary on the issue, or any cannabis groups.

On the off-chance anyone’s interested, my suggestion for wording of this sort of (currently underesearched) medical claim would probably be a more cautious; ‘cannabis product x has demonstrated potential as a treatment for medical condition y’ – or something like that, and then include relevant references, preferably to to peer-reviewed medical journal papers.

And on that note I’m bowing out.


Alun Buffry August 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Steve Rolles commented on Can Cannabis Cure Peter Reynolds?.

‘cannabis oil is proven to cure skin cancer’.

There are several people on Facebook that will testify that cannabis oil has cured their skin cancers – so that is proven that it can cure.

That of course does not mean it will cure skin cancer for everyone, although of course it may.

If you want to wait until a select group of paid scientists and doctors are able to convince the Governments and pharmaceutical companies that it can work, you will have to wait for years, even if they are all honest and unbiased and in any case, the Governments and pharmaceutical industry probably already know.

Just look at what happened with MS and pain – it was not the research that came first, it was the CLAIMS and anecdotes from those that found cannabis helped them.

They also were poo-poo’ed by some campaigners.

Then the research started – leading to the development of an expensive cannabis in alcohol extract, not so different from cannabis oil except in strength and solvent, delivered via a spray, restricted due to alcohol content and price.

And still the Government refuses to acknowledge that cannabis the plant has medicinal uses and value


mr bilson August 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm

Well put. After years of trying to get Savitex prescribed, I gave up. They prescribed me nabilone, a synthetib marijuana, that felt horrible and wasn’t very effective. A poorly person shouldn’t need anyone’s permission to use as medicine which has been used for thousands of years. Give sick people a choice, and let them choose weed if they please for whatever ailment. I believe cannabis as medicine should be every person’s right, without the threat of prison, a fine or a criminal record. A pot user is not a criminal, murderer, thief or evil. No victim, no crime,


helen August 30, 2012 at 1:26 am

Excellent article, Sarah :)

Here’s my response to it and opinion of the best way to deal with the whole matter, so we can all hopefully move forward:
Yes, as others have mentioned, proper clinical trials with results in proper peer-reviewed journals – the whole “scientist” bit. Good luck :)


Andy September 7, 2012 at 8:09 am

heres a link to a educated explanation of how cannabis cures from a proffesional medical perspective. Should show those of you who dont understand how it gets in the blood stream……..


Alun Buffry September 7, 2012 at 10:53 am

A license defined as “permission to do something otherwise prohibited”, Reynolds and CLEAR advocate the introduction of license fees to permit people to grow cannabis for their own use in their own homes – in other words, charge for their Right.

That makes Reynolds and his party prohibitionists – they claim to be acting in the interests of all cannabis users in the UK – by trying to make them pay??

In addition they advocate a vale-added duty at point of sale, which would inflate the price of a beneficial plant and inevitably lead to a residual illicit market.

Reynolds has spent the last 18 months systematically abusing cannabis campaigners (his latest directed at rick Simpson) and throwing anyone that disagrees with him out of his Party.

Reynolds has also attacked gays, immigrants and called for war against Israel, spouting hatred against Jews in his previous blogs.

Reynolds has a criminal conviction for what he calls “the crime of dishonesty” – no further explanation that I know of.

He also spent time on remand in prison for assaulting his wife, but charges were dropped after she wrote letters to him in prison.

Despite my long-term activism in the cannabis campaign I cannot recommend that anyone vote for this man Reynolds


Alun Buffry September 7, 2012 at 10:54 am

and in answer to your question: “Can Cannabis Cure Peter Reynolds?”

I very much doubt it


bat fastard September 7, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Would it be outrageous to posit that Maharg Smith is infact Peter Reynolds incognito? The tone of his posts swing from deliberately unhinged so as to appear different, to an exact replica of Peter’s own favoured insults and soundbites.


Steve September 8, 2012 at 1:43 am

No mate PR prefers to disgrace respectable people when he uses a fake profile . Like pretending to be a Doctor or Jack Herer . Manrag is just some loser who was looking at random website and came across all the fighting at clear and decided that if he hung out of PR arse he could pretent to be someone important at clear . Quite sad really .


Mike September 22, 2012 at 6:57 pm

Manrag is definitely a loser. And ugly too. But not in the same league as the supreme commander of the comment warriors, Obersturmfuhrer Reynolds. Holder of the Iron Cross First Class, an extremely dubious reference from Saatchi & Saatchi, and a criminal record.

The point is not that cannabis cures cancer, or otherwise. But that Dirty Pete seems to change his mind about it on an almost daily basis whilst simultaneously calling everyone else’s opinions, motives and even sanity into question.


act courses January 27, 2013 at 12:54 am

Hi, i think that i saw you visited my web site so i got
here to go back the choose?.I am trying to find things to improve my web site!
I assume its ok to make use of some of your ideas!!


online sat January 27, 2013 at 12:57 am

You are so awesome! I don’t suppose I’ve truly read
through a single thing like this before. So good to discover somebody with some original thoughts on this subject
matter. Seriously.. thanks for starting this up. This
website is one thing that is required on the web, someone
with some originality!


Wesley Hayden March 5, 2013 at 2:52 pm

As far as I am aware unprocessed (herbal) Cannabis can be ingested, in the same way you might ingest other herbs (Basil, Rosemary,Thyme,,,,,etc) either by letting it leech into Oils without heat or light, gently cooking it in butter or in the case of Rick Simpsons Cannabis oil using a solvent to “grab” most of its constituents then evaporate the solvent away leaving the oils to be used internally/externally.

Where are these studies on herbal Cannabis being tested in a controlled & scientifically studied manner with regards to the “Synergy” of all the constituents that make up the plant Cannabis (even down to the cellulose) working together?
(If anyone knows of a study like this please provide a link, thanks)
If isolating compounds or cannabinoids is not working towards this promised cure that is right around the corner (in exchange for more funding) stop ignoring the fact of the existing possiblity to use them all together…as nature intended…as a herb! Or do we still need to change the common perception that dogmatic scientific principles are the only way to test things on how they work?
How can anyone in the UK get such a study off the ground?
Is it possible? Who would be capable of conducting such a test in a fair unbiased manner?
Until such a test/s can be done (with allowances for independent funding perhaps?), with live human patients (not mice, rats or petri dishes, no isolated compounds), double blind peer reviewed with conclusive end test results, then are we not going to continue going around in circles debating the smaller issues.
All these confusing arguments breed an environment for claims to be made by both sides demanding equal proof, it needs to go beyond that now, lets push things forward, we need these results, humans as a race with all there differences need to demand these results so we can put this to bed and start looking elsewhere if proved false or get cracking by allowing man a great tool to fight cancer if it is indeed a cure/part of a cure.

kind regards


David Vernon November 13, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Well, well, well all the same faces slagging everyman and his dog down. I remember when I highlighted Reynolds years ago and the same people supported him.

You’re all trolls and know it, because of you lot the legalisation of cannabis is at a snails pace and all you can do is bitch about Peter Jackanory Reynolds, shame really!


Http:// March 6, 2014 at 7:48 pm

If you plan to be a book heroine, this means that you must eat all the time, except when you’re
not eating, and then you should be thinking about eating. Unfortunately Nora Ephron recently passed away, but she left us with some
of our most endearing romantic comedies of all time — from “When Harry Met Sally” to
“Sleepless in Seattle” and “You’ve got Mail. He represented his homeland in four Olympics and is a three-time indoor world champ in the 1500 meters.


comedian katt williams March 6, 2014 at 9:39 pm

If you’ve done office parties or corporate
work, make sure to mention that as well. But you can’t just stand there
grinning like an idiot until they finish laughing.
Brad Garret is a stand-up comedian but also well known for his acting

Reply March 7, 2014 at 5:42 pm

I would definitely not recommend these as ways to break
the ice however. Celebrity impersonations, musical
gags, and the use of props are just some of the things that you could do in your routine.
Do some research and find out as much as you can about each open mic – try to find the one that is most positively reviewed, gets the
biggest crowd and that is attended by the most comedians.


Robt March 27, 2014 at 3:23 am

It truly is within the method, though, and the way
much of each ingredient you use inside your birthday cake.
While deriving pleasure from ingesting it, the enjoyable also lies
in the look and the effort to make it. Instead of vegetable oil,
try using something slightly heavier like canola oil.


Martina Sidney April 4, 2014 at 3:09 am

I am here to share my experience with Dr Raymond Wallace cannabis oil to you all,i was diagnosed with breast Cancer for close to 2 years i have been in struggling to get a permanent cure but could not get any,i have use some one’s cannabis oil but it did not work.It was faithful day i was in the hospital to do my normal check up then on my way home i was on a discussion with a friend i met on the walk way she then ask me how was my family and what brought me to the hospital i then told her every thing with tears on my eyes and she was touched and she told me she could be of help to me that there is this Doctor that has a very good and active cannabis that has the power to cure every cancer,she then further told me that she had cancer on her leg some times ago that it was Dr Raymond cannabis oil that brought her back to life and she don’t feel any pain again,she gave me Dr Raymond Wallace contact( i contacted him and after some little stress it was was delivered to me in my country USA in less than five days.To cut my story short i applied it as he explained and glory be to God today i am completely healed by Dr Raymond cannabis oil and i am glad to let the whole world know this good man and contact him for help through his email(


Victoria July 6, 2014 at 5:33 am

I see a lot of interesting articles on your page. You have to spend a
lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time, there is a tool
that creates unique, google friendly articles in couple of minutes, just type in google – laranita’s free content source


Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: