|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Book: The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice, Phil Monk and WTU
Saturday 17 Oct 2026 Published in 2021 · ABeFree Publishing Author: We The Undersigned, including Phil Monk Format: Paperback ISBN: 9781838440114 Length: Approximately 222–224 pages, depending on the listing. The book focuses on human rights, civil liberties, cannabis law and the campaign for individuals to have greater freedom over their personal health choice. The Book is available on Amazon 1. What is the book about? The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice is a campaigning book that challenges the UK's prohibition of cannabis. It presents the arguments and experiences of people who believe that adults should have greater freedom to grow, possess and use cannabis, including for medicinal, nutritional, spiritual and recreational purposes. Rather than being a conventional academic textbook on human rights, it combines advocacy, correspondence, legal arguments, background material and contributions from people involved in the campaign. The central argument is that criminalising cannabis use and cultivation for personal purposes can conflict with individual liberty, privacy, personal autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own wellbeing. This is the position advocated by the authors and campaigners, rather than an established legal conclusion that cannabis prohibition is unlawful. 2. What subjects does it cover? The published contents describe a wide-ranging collection of material, including the following: Human rights and civil liberties The right to privacy, freedom of thought and belief, personal autonomy, and whether cannabis prohibition is compatible with individual rights. The campaign and government correspondence Documents relating to WTU's efforts to engage with the UK Government, including correspondence with the Home Office and its proposed legal challenge. Cannabis, health and medicine Discussions of cannabis toxicology, mental health, therapeutic uses, nutrition, hemp seeds and the distinction between medical and recreational use. Legal reform and international comparisons Cannabis laws in different countries, legal arguments concerning possession and cultivation, comparative drug harms, and the experiences of cannabis users. These subjects are listed in the book's published description. 3. Who is Phil Monk? Phil Monk is a British cannabis-law-repeal campaigner and the founder of WTU. In his own account on CrowdJustice, Monk describes his background as a former teacher and explains that personal experiences involving health difficulties and prescribed medication contributed to his becoming an activist. He initially advocated for access to medicinal cannabis, then broadened his campaign to challenge cannabis prohibition more generally. His role in the book is both personal and political: he helps present the experiences of the cannabis community and argues that existing laws impose unjust restrictions on people's freedom to make their own choices. 4. What is WTU? WTU stands for We The Undersigned, associated with the campaign name We The Undersigned Have a Human Sovereign Right to Cannabis. Monk established the group in 2018. It is a campaign community, rather than a university, trade union or government body. Its principal objectives include: - Challenging the criminalisation of cannabis possession and cultivation for personal use. - Advocating for freedom of choice concerning cannabis and personal wellbeing. - Raising human-rights arguments based on privacy, freedom of conscience, peaceful beliefs and personal autonomy. - Seeking legal and political change to UK cannabis policy. WTU's campaign and its stated objectives are documented in its CrowdJustice case page. The book is closely connected to this campaign. Its description states that author commissions are intended to support WTU's campaign funds. 5. How should the book's arguments be assessed? It helps to distinguish between three things: Issue What to understand The campaign's position WTU argues that cannabis prohibition infringes fundamental freedoms. The legal position Human rights arguments do not automatically make cannabis possession or cultivation lawful in the UK. The medical evidence Claims about cannabis benefits, toxicity and comparative harms should be checked against independent scientific research. The book is best approached as an advocacy document and a record of a campaign for legal reform, rather than as a neutral account in which every argument has been independently established. That does not mean its questions about personal liberty or the effects of criminalisation should be dismissed. It means readers should distinguish the campaign's interpretations from the law, court judgments and scientific evidence. 1. The campaign's timeline: 2018–2021 2018 WTU is founded Phil Monk establishes We The Undersigned to challenge cannabis prohibition on human-rights grounds, extending beyond access to medicinal cannabis alone. 2019 Legal fundraising and initial advice WTU raises money through CrowdJustice to fund legal advice, research and an expert report. By July 2019, Monk says the campaign has raised sufficient funds for the next stage of advice, but the barrister has warned that the challenge would be difficult and potentially costly. 2020 The proposed challenge encounters delays WTU's June update describes difficulties transferring its legal files between firms, assembling evidence and finalising the case. The stated aim was to seek a declaration that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was incompatible with human-rights law. The campaign's last published CrowdJustice update is dated 7 July 2020. 2021 WTU is still preparing for a possible judicial review An interview published by Cannabis Health on 24 February 2021 reported that the group's solicitor had written to Home Secretary Priti Patel on 23 December, calling for an end to criminal sanctions for private, non-commercial adult cannabis activity. At the time of publication, the group was awaiting a response and preparing for a possible judicial review. The timeline establishes that the campaign had progressed beyond a general political demand: it had obtained legal assistance, prepared supporting material and communicated with the Home Office. But those steps do not establish that court proceedings were formally issued. 2. What exactly was WTU trying to achieve in court? WTU's proposed challenge was broader than a request for an individual exemption to use cannabis for medical reasons. The group wanted to challenge the legal framework that criminalises unauthorised cannabis possession, cultivation and other activities. Its arguments centred on human rights, including: - Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: respect for private and family life. - Article 9: freedom of thought, conscience and religion, potentially relevant to sincerely held beliefs and practices. - Article 10: freedom of expression, where applicable. - Article 14: protection against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights, where the relevant legal requirements are met. WTU also discussed seeking a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This is a specific judicial remedy: a higher court can declare that a provision of primary legislation is incompatible with a Convention right. Such a declaration does not, by itself, invalidate the legislation or make prohibited conduct lawful. 3. Did the case actually reach the High Court? I could not verify that WTU's proposed challenge was ever issued as a High Court claim or resulted in a court judgment. The available evidence points to the following distinction: Stage What the evidence shows Legal representation Solicitors and a human-rights barrister were involved. Evidence gathering WTU reported compiling research, expert material and personal testimony. Contact with the Government A letter was sent to the Home Secretary in December 2020, according to the February 2021 interview. Judicial review Reported as being prepared for, not confirmed as having been filed. Court hearing or judgment I found no identifiable published judgment establishing that WTU's proposed challenge was heard and decided. Sources: WTU's CrowdJustice case page and the February 2021 Cannabis Health interview. I also searched for a reported decision using WTU's name and Phil Monk's name in the National Archives' Find Case Law service, which publishes judgments from the High Court and other courts. I did not identify a matching judgment. There is an important limitation: not every legal filing, procedural decision or court hearing results in a publicly available judgment. Therefore, the absence of a published decision does not conclusively prove that no proceedings were ever filed. The most defensible conclusion is that the proposed legal challenge was publicly documented as being developed, but its eventual filing and outcome remain unverified from the records I could locate. 4. What happened to the funding and legal work? This is an important part of the story because it helps explain why the proposed case may not have progressed as planned. WTU's CrowdJustice page records £8,949 pledged from 416 pledges. In its June 2020 update, Monk described delays caused by a dispute over outstanding legal fees and the transfer of documents to a new firm. He said that a solicitor was willing to continue assisting the campaign pro bono and that a barrister would advise on the appropriate next steps. An article published by Emerald Publishing in 2021 also described the WTU initiative as a challenge that lacked sufficient funding to go all the way to the High Court at that point. Taken together, these sources document a campaign that had invested in legal preparation but faced practical and financial obstacles. 5. What does this mean for the wider cannabis-rights movement? WTU's proposed case raised a significant legal question: how far can an individual rely on human rights to challenge a general criminal prohibition on conduct undertaken in private? There is a difference between arguing that a law interferes with personal autonomy and establishing that the interference is unlawful under the Human Rights Act. A court would need to consider the particular rights engaged, the Government's justification for the restrictions, the evidence of harm and the applicable legal tests. WTU's proposed challenge should also be distinguished from other cannabis cases. For example, in R v Quayle [2005] EWCA Crim 1415, the Court of Appeal considered arguments relating to medical necessity and cannabis offences. That case is relevant background to the difficulties of challenging cannabis prohibition through individual criminal proceedings, but it was not a ruling on WTU's proposed case. For a reader of The Fight for Rights and Freedom of Choice, that distinction matters. The book records the campaign's arguments and objectives; it does not, by itself, establish that a court endorsed them. Finally, due to lack of funding and after legal represenatives stated that any court case could cost up to £150,000 and that the High Court could demand another £200,000 as surety to cover defence costs should WTU lose a case, Phil Monk closed down the WTU.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!