Joints Wanted All Over The Uk...

[G-Whizz!]

Hello again!

I received this from recently from someone at the LCA. It will only take a moment to read, yet make a difference for a lifetime.

"We hope you will be a "joint" in this chain letter that will cost you from nothing to something!

All we are asking is that you read the letter, note down our details and pass this letter on to one other person. Of course, if you decide to pass it on to more than one, or even print it out and make copies, it would be even better.

I can send you a Word doc (click on the email link at the bottom of this letter) on LCA letterhead with similar text if you wish.

In this way we can reach many millions of people who may support the cause of

legalisation.

WE KNOW HOW TO LEGALISE CANNABIS!

Politicians make and change laws - we put the politicians in power - they are interested in votes. We intend to show them that there is great public support for legalisation. We believe that the way to change the law is through the ballot box at election times.

The Legalise Cannabis Alliance was formed as a political party in 1999. Since then we have contested over 30 elections and gained over 7% in one. Our average vote of about 1.7% is excellent for such a new and low-budget party.

Our very presence in elections, and in between, has stimulated debate and helped bring about shifts in the cannabis policies of other parties. Some now support legalisation, although they stubbornly refuse to push for it. Already the LCA is causing a stir and attracting attention. But "they ain't seen nothing yet!"

LOCAL ELECTIONS 2004

Our aim is to get one candidate in each of 150 constituencies at the local elections next May. Some places may have more than one constituency and some wards may have more than one seat up for offer - a real bonus for that because electors will get more than one vote!

To do this we need to find a local representative in each place, even if it is just to get the ball rolling and hold a small meeting. Maybe that's you or somebody you know? Please help us try to find the right person.

Apart from that, all we ask you to do is VOTE for an LCA candidate if there is one in your own ward, and ask others to do the same.

GENERAL ELECTION

This will probably be in 2005. We intend to contest enough seats to entitle us to a CANNABIS PARTY BROADCAST ON TV.

Hopefully, many of the places where people stand in 2004 will have a candidate in the general election too, although that does involve some fund-raising. We can find a candidate if there is not a local person, but we need the funds to be raised in advance and that means starting now. The deposit (which is returned for over 5% of the vote) is £500 and at least the same is needed for fliers and other costs. But that's just over £10 per week if we have 2 years.

This can come through regular collections, sponsorships from businesses, fund-raising events etc.

IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT WE GET OVER THE HURDLE OF POLITICAL INDIFFERENCE AND APATHY, AS WELL AS THAT OF ANY FEELINGS OF BEING UNABLE TO CHANGE ANYTHING, AND GET PEOPLE TO VOTE ON THE DAY

THANKS FOR READING THIS. IF YOU CAN HELP OR WANT TO KNOW MORE, GET IN TOUCH.

PLEASE PASS THIS ON AND HELP ASSURE OUR CANDIDATES OF A BIG VOTE.

THEN WE WILL SEE CANNABIS LEGALISED SOON AFTERWARDS.

Legalise Cannabis Alliance, PO Box 198, Norwich, NR3 3WB

www.lca-uk.org

Email

Thanks alot peeps...

G

[bigcheggs]

good work G

printed

cheggs

[oli]

Ive not been able to find a mannifesto on the site. I know you want to free the weed but what else do you stand for?

oli

[G-Whizz!]

Hiya Oli

How you doing?

Mebbe this will help!

G

PS Nice one BC, I'm going through that C99 grow of yours!

[Cannafish]

I think it's a great idea-am i right in assuming donations to political party's are the same as donations to charity's??? If they are my company will be happy to cough up the fee to stand a local election. I know at least a hundred people in my borough who spoil their vote cos-lets face it-why would you vote for any of the idiot, lying, two-faced bastards who do nothing unless it benefits them. The people who are going to vote labour-have you forgotten the petrol fiasco and mr blairs attitude(i don't care what the facts are or what the population think,i've made my mind up) the other party's are just as bad and the greens are off there bleeding heads.

I know even more who would vote to legalise if they could,get the ball rolling and i think you'll find it will snowball.

FB

[shug]

I think it's a great idea-am i right in assuming donations to political party's are the same as donations to charity's??? If they are my company will be happy to cough up the fee to stand a local election.

Thanks FB - don't know if the rules are the same as for charities - I dunno what the charity rules are

Local elections have NO FEE.

Leaflets are the only real expense so how much to spend depends on the candidate - how much can they raise and how many leaflets can they put out. (Some candidates have already put out several leaflets in their wards - but most just do it once in the last week or so, so the cost is well under £100)

They can also use posters, adverts etc, but these are not essential.

The rules on donations to political parties only come in with donations of £200 or over. These larger donations must be from certain "allowable" donors - individuals who are registered to vote, companies which are registered in the EU and who trade in UK, unincorporated associations (LCCS, CLCIA, etc sort of group), and a few other groups.

Anything else you need to know?

[Gandalf]

If conservatives get into power, then they would put cannabis back into class B?

[G-Whizz!]

I couldn't tell ya mate, never have, and never will take any notice of that bunch of twats...

G

[snoril]

would not an effective way of quickening the legalisation of canabis also be to ignore the lesser penalty laws over cannabis for example the reclasification of toking the weed and the new three strikes before prosecution thing has come about due to the knowledge that toking the weed isnt an antisocial or destructive passtime for the rest of society because it was so much hassle to process the ever ingreasing number of blaitant tokers and expense it got made a class c. perhaps it is not so much as to convince the govt there aint owt wrong with toking to legalise it ( as i am allready fairly sure this is an obviouse fact to even the most inbread of politicians { plus half of them claim to have toked at some point generaly for the younger vote to appear a bit cooler than the rest}) its more to make the issue that its less hassle and expense to legalise than prosicute afterall it is all about the mony at the end of the day. for example the on mass marches where weed is toked and sold quite openly in the streets nothing gets done by the cops cos its impractical. what they gonna do lock up half the country pay for our beds our food our shelter.

the possibility of on the spot fines may cause some concern but then what if you refuse to pay they have to arrest which brings us back to the problem of overcrowded prisons and eccessive expense. were this to happen im fairly sure an appeal to the european court per case which is a much less rigid court on the whole and our right as citizens of eu country would bring a very negative view of our outdated legal dogma. all that hassle for one geezer toking a splif in the street and sticking up for his human rights to partake of an activity that has no negative efects on anyone other than himself . beer cant make this claim and thats legal oh but also nicely taxable and a very good drug to use as a way of maintaining social control. you get pissed off see somethings wrong go get pissed and stay in the system. you get pissed off see somethings wrong go get stoned and try and think of ways to escape/change the system thus depriving those in control of there control.

then again i could be wrong it is afterall just an idea

[shug]

would not an effective way of quickening the legalisation of canabis also be to ignore the lesser penalty laws over cannabis for example the reclasification of toking the weed and the new three strikes before prosecution thing has come about due to the knowledge that toking the weed isnt an antisocial or destructive passtime for the rest of society because it was so much hassle to process the ever ingreasing number of blaitant tokers and expense it got made a class c. perhaps it is not so much as to convince the govt there aint owt wrong with toking to legalise it ( as i am allready fairly sure this is an obviouse fact to even the most inbread of politicians { plus half of them claim to have toked at some point generaly for the younger vote to appear a bit cooler than the rest}) its more to make the issue that its less hassle and expense to legalise than prosicute afterall it is all about the mony at the end of the day.

Shit snoril, thats some sentence. Makes you breathless reading it And confused Maybe just too many but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by

"ignore the lesser penalty laws" - just smoke openly? That's what is happening in London and elsewhere and you can see what's happened.

There have also been things like the various Turn-Youself-In days over the years where you get the police, not so much turnng a blind eye, as simpy walking out of the front office and refusing to do anything. On the other extreme you get Smokey Bears Picnics which can be trouble-free or with mass arrests, sometimes for wearing hemp trousers!

You can read the history about both these events on http://www.ukcia.org

[snoril]

Shit snoril, thats some sentence. Makes you breathless reading it And confused  Maybe just too many but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 

"ignore the lesser penalty laws" - just smoke openly? That's what is happening in London and elsewhere and you can see what's happened.

There have also been things like the various Turn-Youself-In days over the years where you get the police, not so much turnng a blind eye, as simpy walking out of the front office and refusing to do anything. On the other extreme you get Smokey Bears Picnics which can be trouble-free or with mass arrests, sometimes for wearing hemp trousers!

You can read the history about both these events on http://www.ukcia.org

267348[/snapback]

i think i understand what you are saying and the idea of smoking openly is one that although i am not against does still need to be done if done with sense its fairly reasonable to assume that the strictness of the police in ones local area on such an activity will be fairly well observed by any toker and obviously if there all a load of ainslingers asking youre local bobby for a light with a nice fat bob marley in youre gob wouldnt be the safest or wisest move.

reading the sugested article in youre response was interesting but seemed to me to just confirm how ignorant or voluntarily blind the way the govt judge the "abuse" of drugs quote "If cannabis was reclassified back to class B everybody would know where they stand, cannabis use would fall, and police could return to arresting those who use illegal drugs." this sentence particularly stood out to me as being a great big steaming pile of statistical bullshit obviously to re classify would lead to less arrests as the penaltys would be harsher this would not disuade us from toking just from letting anyone know about it introduce the death penalty hardly anyone would be caught cos we'd all be a hell of a lot more careful (or leave the country).

at the end of the day ask an anti weed general member of the public why weed is bad and the general response is because its illegal.

so then why is it illegal it cant possibly be argued on a public health stance as cigarettes and alcohol are easily as personaly harmful with none of the benefits of ganga ( did you see the medical trials on channel 4 a few years ago)

nor could it be put down to a sociological stand point how many people have you seen try and start fights after getting stoned.

the use of the hemp plant for high quality ropes and clothing as well as paper is well known ( 2nd world war fields of hemp were planted as a quick easy replenishable source of material for clothong rope etc to aid the war effort)

the neutritional value of the seed is also verry high ive read it was the staple diet of the ainchent chineese as far back as 6000 bc

howeaver these atributes of this most wonderful plant are unfortunatly its undoing being cast aside in favour of often lesser quality materials that are worse for the environment and man in favour of bigger profit.

have a headace smoke a spliff but thats free ( asuming gange were legal as it would be growing all over the place ) take a paracetamol the haedache is still gone but it costs dollar stimulates the ecomomy produces jobs people to make it pacage it sell it refine it so illegalise the weed it may not make sense but its good buisness.

once people have been awoken to the realisation that there is no difference between govt and law and orgonised crime in princaple ( the govt is just a drug dealer thats very well established so well its no longer seen as a drug dealer { which to me seems a pretty scary thought} and that law is not justice but an extreemly effective protection racket then change that counts can occur.

for example the idea of human rights very nice but it dosent exist. we all have the right to our own personal freedom unless we (the govt) dont like what that freedom allows its a tool of social engineering there is no freedom just an illusion of freedom to quiet the masses but allways with a get out clause.

sorry i appear to have rambled i tend to do that not sure why could be too much toking but am pretty sure its due to not enough

make sense of what you can and what you cant look at it again after another spliff it may make more sense ( but i doubt it)

snoril

[shug]

You make sense (at least I think you do ).

A lot of the general public are ignorant. That doesn't mean stupid, it means lacking in knowledge. They are brainwashed by the media, the government propoganda and the 'anti's.

These links are about the US, Duhbya, Iraq etc, but we are in a very similar situation because, as you point out, its all about money, business and also OIL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/artic...5_stepford.html

http://www.oilempire.us/media.html

http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/brainwash1.htm

http://www.mackwhite.com/tv.html

As for govt smuggling & dealing drugs, well you've forgotten the important thing - the fact that money-laundering is propping up Wall St and the City of London.

From Narco-Dollars for Beginners, "How the Money Works" in the Illicit Drug Trade by Catherine Austin Fitts

NYSE's Richard Grasso and the Ultimate New Business "Cold Call"

Lest you think my comment about the New York Stock Exchange is too strong, let's look at one event that occurred before our "war on drugs" went into high gear through Plan Colombia, banging heads over narco dollar market share in Latin America.

In late June 1999, numerous news services, including Associated Press, reported that Richard Grasso, Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange flew to Colombia to meet with a spokesperson for Raul Reyes of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), the supposed "narco terrorists" with whom we are now at war.

The purpose of the trip was "to bring a message of cooperation from U.S. financial services" and to discuss foreign investment and the future role of U.S. businesses in Colombia.

Some reading in between the lines said to me that Grasso's mission related to the continued circulation of cocaine capital through the US financial system. FARC, the Colombian rebels, were circulating their profits back into local development without the assistance of the American banking and investment system. Worse yet for the outlook for the US stock market's strength from $500 billion -- $1 trillion in annual money laundering -- FARC was calling for the decriminalization of cocaine.

To understand the threat of decriminalization of the drug trade, just go back to your Sam and Dave estimate and recalculate the numbers given what decriminalization does to drive BIG PERCENT back to SLIM PERCENT and what that means to Wall Street and Washington's cash flows. No narco dollars, no reinvestment into the stock markets, no campaign contributions.

It was only a few days after Grasso's trip that BBC News reported a General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress as saying: "Colombia's cocaine and heroin production is set to rise by as much as 50 percent as the U.S. backed drug war flounders, due largely to the growing strength of Marxist rebels"

I deduced from this incident that the liquidity of the NY Stock Exchange was sufficiently dependent on high margin cocaine profits (BIG PERCENT) that the Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange was willing for Associated Press to acknowledge he is making "cold calls" in rebel controlled peace zones in Colombian villages. "Cold calls" is what we used to call new business visits we would pay to people we had not yet done business with when I was on Wall Street.

I presume Grasso's trip was not successful in turning the cash flow tide. Hence, Plan Colombia is proceeding apace to try to move narco deposits out of FARC's control and back to the control of our traditional allies and, even if that does not work, to move Citibank's market share and that of the other large US banks and financial institutions steadily up in Latin America.

Buy Banamex anyone?

I think I've wandered a little but its clear that the forces that favour prohibition in the US are huge and well funded and they exert influence across the globe by bribes, threats, murder, extortion, and lets not forget war.

The UK government, the opposition and the civil service know the truth, the legalisation movement have been informing them of the facts and the science for years. They pretend its all about a bunch of stereotypical wasters bleating for the right to sit around getting stoned all day when most people involved are just as interested in the medical and/or the hemp aspects.

When the US goes bankrupt (soon by the looks of things) then the War on (Some) Drugs will either become even more important and countries are encouraged to clamp down - this will naturally lead to higher prices as dealers are risking longer jail sentences etc which i turn would mean more money is involved in the drugs trade and so there will be more oney to be laundered.

Or the opposite will happen. It is just possible that the Congress & Senate will find their cajones and start putting their country in order. The sheer stupitidy, hypocrisy and inhumanity of prohibition will be acknowledged publicly, the guilty will be impeached and charged with malfeasance and the real vicitms of the WO(s)D will be let out of jail and pardoned. (Well, we can all dream )

I think the point I'm trying to make is this.

For legalisation to occur in the UK, we have to have a government who have the cajones to stand up to the US - whether its run by Bush or his successor.

[snoril]

The Bush administration relies heavily on dependency. It is dependent on bribing poor people to fight their oil wars, and believe their own propoganda. The fact they have money laundering is beside the point as it amounts to the same thing.

The fact remains if you work in UK society you are going to aid some tycoon somewhere, the fact your not a dissident means you are an advocate of the system in place. This would mean that regardless of your own personal thoughts, if you work at all in a commercialist society you are an advocate of that system and your fate can be correlated to that of general society.

We live in a hypocrasy, and we have to bow are heads to liars, cheats, and rapists. If you do not, there is a presumption, by idiots (capitalist workers) that you hate, in some way, love, freedom, democracy, and peace.