Thatcher’s Needle Exchange Was Revolutionary

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Why is this idea important?

In 1986, Margaret Thatcher initiated a scheme to prevent the spread of HIV and protect society. In its day, the Needle Exchange Programme was hailed as debauchery and was seen to condone drug use.

Margaret Thatcher, love her or hate her, took charge and did was right for the people, she took a brave step and stuck by her guns.

Regulation of drugs is the inevitable and logical conclusion to this "revolutionary" programme.

We are now 24 years into this programme, and the UK and Thatcher are hailed as flag bearers to a modern day stance on health related drug use. As cited in the source below, many countries still do not have such programmes and refuse to do so, the U.S and Russia being most notable. The evidence speaks volumes, there is not a single person that can argue the programme has not worked and is an overwhelming success. The UK has kept HIV rates in drug use down to a steady 1%- compared to Russia who have no interest in anything but judicial stance, they have a 60% HIV rate.

Regulating and controlling drugs in the UK is not revolutionary, it is a continuation of the exchange programme in its essence. We look to Portugal, Holland, Italy, Czech Republic, these countries have decriminalised; drug use has lowered, crime has dropped dramatically, HIV rates have plummeted, harms reduced considerably, and every area of society has benefited. Abuse in children has also seen a noticeable change for the better.

Continue Thatcher's legacy, her work remains unfinished. Clean up our country and take drugs away from cartels and gangs. Regulate, decriminalise, and control that which has been uncontrollable under prohibition.

Thatcher, for better or for worse, was a leader, not afraid of media bias. We need leading, we cry out for leadership:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/needle_exchange_drug_czar_dec03_08.html

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Les Iversen, of the ACMD on Cannabis:

Professor Nutt was sacked as we know unfairly despite his vindication as cited here: http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

Les Iversen that took the place of Professor Nutt.  The current leader of the ACMD has spoken out on cannabis in the past.  This is what he has to say:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4690997-why-cannabis-doesnt-kill.do

When I read last week that as many as 30,000 deaths a year in Britain could be caused by smoking cannabis, I reacted in a most uncustomary way for a mild-mannered scientist. I was infuriated. As someone acknowledged throughout the world as a specialist in how drugs affect the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis, and I know that the facts are not there to stand up such an outrageous statement.

The main problem is that cannabis has been classified incorrectly for nearly 50 years as being an extremely dangerous drug, but it doesn't fit that level of hazard. I'm not saying it's completely safe – no drug is completely safe, but as recreational drugs go, it's one of the safer ones. You can't overdose on cannabis, but you can certainly overdose on heroin, and even on alcohol.
It is headline-grabbing rubbish to suggest that cannabis could be responsible for so many deaths in future. To be sure, it makes a great story, but when you look at the arithmetic, it doesn't add up.
The original British Medical Journal article suggested that the chemicals which are given off when cannabis is smoked could mean that users would succumb to the same diseases that affect tobacco smokers. But in my view, it overlooks several significant facts.
Cannabis smoke does contain many of the same poisonous chemicals that you find in cigarette smoke, and cannabis smokers draw more tar into their lungs than cigarette smokers because they tend to inhale more deeply, and then hold their breath.
But to end up with as much tar in their lungs as a 20-a-day cigarette smoker, a cannabis user would have to smoke four or five joints a day, every day of the week.
But most of the million or so in this country who smoke cannabis do so at the weekend (I believe the article's figure of 3.2 million users is again wide of the mark) and the great majority quit when they reach their thirties. If the risks of smoking cannabis equate to those of tobacco, those who quit before they are 35 only have a slightly increased risk of lung cancer, just one or two per cent.
Yes, cannabis smoke has some harmful effects. It irritates the lungs just as much as tobacco, and there is some evidence that it causes a nasty cough, which can lead to bronchitis, but to say that this leads to lung cancer is a huge leap in the dark.
You can't extrapolate like that because the hard evidence does not exist. Of course, you could say that 50 years ago we didn't know that cigarette smoke was so harmful, but to put a number on the risk of cannabis at this stage, with random figures, is scaremongering. The report suggested that tetrahydrocannabinol – the nicotine equivalent in cannabis – can increase by more than four times the chances of a heart attack within an hour of taking it, and also mentioned that most cannabis sold on the UK black market is now 10 times stronger than it was 20 years ago.
These things may be true, but it is also a fact that in Britain, no drug-related deaths due to cannabis have been reported for many years. So you simply cannot conclude that smoking cannabis is likely to give you a heart attack.
Another scaremongering tactic from the anti-cannabis brigade is that regular use means a higher risk of mental illness, such as schizophrenia and depression. Certainly, studies have been published which show an "association", but that doesn't prove cause and effect.
It doesn't mean that one thing automatically leads to the other. That is not the way scientists should conduct experiments, nor draw conclusions in print.
I am not approving the fact that so many young people smoke cannabis, but we must learn to be more grown-up about the way we debate the subject. We have to look at the facts in a more dispassionate way.
And, at least in the sense that the issue can now be debated openly, that has begun to happen. No one would discuss cannabis, even relatively recently. When I advised the House of Lords committee five years ago that cannabis was not as damaging as, for instance, regular smoking or drinking, no one wanted to know about our findings. Now, things have changed. A number of serious studies have been done, which is moving the debate in the right direction.
It is never possible for a scientist to say that anything is totally safe. But, at the end of the day, scaremongering does science – and the public – a great disservice. Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be.
• Professor Les Iversen of the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University is the author of The Science of Marijuana, published by Oxford University Press.

Why is this idea important?

Professor Nutt was sacked as we know unfairly despite his vindication as cited here: http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

Les Iversen that took the place of Professor Nutt.  The current leader of the ACMD has spoken out on cannabis in the past.  This is what he has to say:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4690997-why-cannabis-doesnt-kill.do

When I read last week that as many as 30,000 deaths a year in Britain could be caused by smoking cannabis, I reacted in a most uncustomary way for a mild-mannered scientist. I was infuriated. As someone acknowledged throughout the world as a specialist in how drugs affect the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis, and I know that the facts are not there to stand up such an outrageous statement.

The main problem is that cannabis has been classified incorrectly for nearly 50 years as being an extremely dangerous drug, but it doesn't fit that level of hazard. I'm not saying it's completely safe – no drug is completely safe, but as recreational drugs go, it's one of the safer ones. You can't overdose on cannabis, but you can certainly overdose on heroin, and even on alcohol.
It is headline-grabbing rubbish to suggest that cannabis could be responsible for so many deaths in future. To be sure, it makes a great story, but when you look at the arithmetic, it doesn't add up.
The original British Medical Journal article suggested that the chemicals which are given off when cannabis is smoked could mean that users would succumb to the same diseases that affect tobacco smokers. But in my view, it overlooks several significant facts.
Cannabis smoke does contain many of the same poisonous chemicals that you find in cigarette smoke, and cannabis smokers draw more tar into their lungs than cigarette smokers because they tend to inhale more deeply, and then hold their breath.
But to end up with as much tar in their lungs as a 20-a-day cigarette smoker, a cannabis user would have to smoke four or five joints a day, every day of the week.
But most of the million or so in this country who smoke cannabis do so at the weekend (I believe the article's figure of 3.2 million users is again wide of the mark) and the great majority quit when they reach their thirties. If the risks of smoking cannabis equate to those of tobacco, those who quit before they are 35 only have a slightly increased risk of lung cancer, just one or two per cent.
Yes, cannabis smoke has some harmful effects. It irritates the lungs just as much as tobacco, and there is some evidence that it causes a nasty cough, which can lead to bronchitis, but to say that this leads to lung cancer is a huge leap in the dark.
You can't extrapolate like that because the hard evidence does not exist. Of course, you could say that 50 years ago we didn't know that cigarette smoke was so harmful, but to put a number on the risk of cannabis at this stage, with random figures, is scaremongering. The report suggested that tetrahydrocannabinol – the nicotine equivalent in cannabis – can increase by more than four times the chances of a heart attack within an hour of taking it, and also mentioned that most cannabis sold on the UK black market is now 10 times stronger than it was 20 years ago.
These things may be true, but it is also a fact that in Britain, no drug-related deaths due to cannabis have been reported for many years. So you simply cannot conclude that smoking cannabis is likely to give you a heart attack.
Another scaremongering tactic from the anti-cannabis brigade is that regular use means a higher risk of mental illness, such as schizophrenia and depression. Certainly, studies have been published which show an "association", but that doesn't prove cause and effect.
It doesn't mean that one thing automatically leads to the other. That is not the way scientists should conduct experiments, nor draw conclusions in print.
I am not approving the fact that so many young people smoke cannabis, but we must learn to be more grown-up about the way we debate the subject. We have to look at the facts in a more dispassionate way.
And, at least in the sense that the issue can now be debated openly, that has begun to happen. No one would discuss cannabis, even relatively recently. When I advised the House of Lords committee five years ago that cannabis was not as damaging as, for instance, regular smoking or drinking, no one wanted to know about our findings. Now, things have changed. A number of serious studies have been done, which is moving the debate in the right direction.
It is never possible for a scientist to say that anything is totally safe. But, at the end of the day, scaremongering does science – and the public – a great disservice. Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be.
• Professor Les Iversen of the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University is the author of The Science of Marijuana, published by Oxford University Press.

Focus On The Victims Of Crime

In our current fiscal situation, the UK is to lose a potential 65-000 police officers.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10694895

Today, Louise Casey the Victims and Witness Commissioner has spoken freely of how the current judicial system is failing the victims of crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10691151

With Kenneth Clarke looking for ways to cut the judicial system budget, it is prudent and respectful to those who have been a victim of crime to to receive the support they deserve and appropriate penalties should be focused on crime with a victim.  This is where law and order should be focused.

It is insulting to those who have suffered real crime to still place onus on catching people with cannabis, there is no victim involved with this plant, and resources simply cannot be spared on this unjust and futile war.  Alcohol is taking up an immeasurable amount of time, money and resources on the police, cannabis has never and can never create this drain on the force as an ingested substance; and as many senior members of the force have spoken out in ending the war on cannabis, please can they be listened to.  It is an infringement of everyone's civil liberties as it stands that cannabis is still given attention by law when violent crime is so prevalent.  Crime needs a victim, so please let's focus on that ethos.

Why is this idea important?

In our current fiscal situation, the UK is to lose a potential 65-000 police officers.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10694895

Today, Louise Casey the Victims and Witness Commissioner has spoken freely of how the current judicial system is failing the victims of crime:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10691151

With Kenneth Clarke looking for ways to cut the judicial system budget, it is prudent and respectful to those who have been a victim of crime to to receive the support they deserve and appropriate penalties should be focused on crime with a victim.  This is where law and order should be focused.

It is insulting to those who have suffered real crime to still place onus on catching people with cannabis, there is no victim involved with this plant, and resources simply cannot be spared on this unjust and futile war.  Alcohol is taking up an immeasurable amount of time, money and resources on the police, cannabis has never and can never create this drain on the force as an ingested substance; and as many senior members of the force have spoken out in ending the war on cannabis, please can they be listened to.  It is an infringement of everyone's civil liberties as it stands that cannabis is still given attention by law when violent crime is so prevalent.  Crime needs a victim, so please let's focus on that ethos.

Legal Highs; Another Reason Prohibition Has Failed; News From Today

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Why is this idea important?

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Freedom Of Information Act – and Freedom

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

Why is this idea important?

The freedom of information act has been abused and can be proven so:

These three separate documents unequivocally prove that information has been withheld from a biased point of view.  Any other subject matter and this would have been headline news, but, for some reason, it didn't.

On the 9th July 2010, the freedom of information act finally relented and gave up this piece of damning evidence against the drug classification system, it vindicates Professor Nutt entirely.  Not to mention, it makes a mockery of the governance of the day.  The full document pdf can be found here:

http://www.drugequality.org/ico_press_release.htm

 

In 2007, the FOI vetted this document so as "to avoid a focus on the gaps in the evidence base" and cited the group Transform specifically.  This is against the rules of the FOI act, no biased is allowed to a party wishing to view a document.  Once more, the full story and document  PDF can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/06/home_office_error_reveals_how_foi_request_handled.html

 

And finally, this piece of information was withheld from the public for 9 months and was "slipped through" with the Mephadrone ban.  The document called "pathways to problems" is a report from the ACMD .  The document is a highly critical of the way alcohol is handled in the UK, once more, it has received little attention and the recommendations were not heeded.  The story can be found here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/critical-alcohol-review-hidden-by-mephedrone-row-1948191.html

I would like the Freedom Of Information act to do as it says, allow freedom without bias or partisan ethics.

End The Need For Political Polling That Could Influence Opinion

During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling.  The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.

Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.

In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going?  Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy?  When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind. 

Why is this idea important?

During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling.  The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.

Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.

In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going?  Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy?  When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind. 

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.