Allow Pharmacies/Chemists to dispense anti-biotics without a prescription

Remove the regulation which restricts Pharmacies from dispensing without prescription anti-biotics and higher strength medications (with some limitations of course).  On the continent Pharmacies/Chemists are permitted to dispense anti-biotics and higher strength medicines without a prescription from a GP. Surely this would free up time in GP's surgeries saving the NHS time to deal with more serious cases.

Its worth noting that Pharmacists are trained to do this already is just they are not permitted to do so in this country.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the regulation which restricts Pharmacies from dispensing without prescription anti-biotics and higher strength medications (with some limitations of course).  On the continent Pharmacies/Chemists are permitted to dispense anti-biotics and higher strength medicines without a prescription from a GP. Surely this would free up time in GP's surgeries saving the NHS time to deal with more serious cases.

Its worth noting that Pharmacists are trained to do this already is just they are not permitted to do so in this country.

Amend smoking ban – to only cover true public spaces

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

Why is this idea important?

The present smoking ban makes smoking in many private properties illegal.  It does these by defining these private properties as public.   Just because a member of the public may be allowed access to these properties does not make them public.

 

Instead the law should ban smoking in true public places including all government (local and national) offices and maybe even parks (of at least a certain space)

Remove the limit on the number of pain killers you can buy

Remove the current limit of two small boxes of tablets you can buy at any one time. In the US you can bulk buy. The only effect of this is to push up prices. If you want to OD you can go to 3 shops.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the current limit of two small boxes of tablets you can buy at any one time. In the US you can bulk buy. The only effect of this is to push up prices. If you want to OD you can go to 3 shops.

Change the criteria of the smoking ban in pubs

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the smoking ban either a) to allowing smoking in one bar of a pub (perhaps with an air extraction system to protect the staff) provided the pub has more than one bar.

or b) to allowing the pub to provide a better shelter outside.

Make Health Insurance compulsory for foreigners entering our country

Foreigners, including people from the EU, must have health insurance. If they arrive with out it they must be required to purchase it at the place of entry. No insurance, no entry. It would save the NHS millions. They have started to do this in Cuba. So should we.

Why is this idea important?

Foreigners, including people from the EU, must have health insurance. If they arrive with out it they must be required to purchase it at the place of entry. No insurance, no entry. It would save the NHS millions. They have started to do this in Cuba. So should we.

Smoking ban Public Houses

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

Why is this idea important?

With the current trend of numerous public houses having to close weekly, the impact this has on Government taxation revenues, why has the smoking ban to apply to ALL Public Houses. Smokers pay more tax than non smokers and much of the income derived from the sale of cigarettes and alcohol goes into the National Health Service.

Why, initially at least, after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced, were the Houses of Parliament allowed a smoking room when normal smokers were refused this simple right?

Would it not make sense to allow a brewery or licensee the option, provided no food is sold within the premises, nor children served there, to allow smoking within such licenced premises. These could be clearly indentified with health warnings thus non smokers could make an informed decision as to whether to enter or not.

If anyone has been to Spain, France, Portugal etc recently it seems that they have a far more relaxed attitude to this whole matter. As a smoker I would urge the Government to consider this whole issue and review a possible small amendment to a law restricting a freedom this country had enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Even the Queen sent cigarettes to our troops in the trenches in the 1914 – 18 conflict, surely allowing such a small freedom to those who choose to smoke whilst continuing to protect children and non smokers is hardly likely to cause riots in the street!

 

Reverse the law which permits toxic fluoride from being put into our water supply

Fluoride is a known toxic substance which has very serious negative implications for our health. The theory that fluoride helps reduce dental caries is seriously disputed by increasing numbers of scientists and medical experts.

Incidentally, a report commissioned by Commons authorities in 2009 estimated that the Houses of Parliament uses over 21,000 bottles of bottled water each year (see Guardian 28 August 2009..  If our tap water is so safe, why are our politicians adding 12 tonnes to the carbon footprint every year through their use of bottled water, and spending thousands of tax payers money on same.

If, as the government keeps telling us, our tap water is of excellent quality, why aren't they prepared to drink it?????

 

Why is this idea important?

Fluoride is a known toxic substance which has very serious negative implications for our health. The theory that fluoride helps reduce dental caries is seriously disputed by increasing numbers of scientists and medical experts.

Incidentally, a report commissioned by Commons authorities in 2009 estimated that the Houses of Parliament uses over 21,000 bottles of bottled water each year (see Guardian 28 August 2009..  If our tap water is so safe, why are our politicians adding 12 tonnes to the carbon footprint every year through their use of bottled water, and spending thousands of tax payers money on same.

If, as the government keeps telling us, our tap water is of excellent quality, why aren't they prepared to drink it?????

 

One patient GP, 2 random doctors

All we need to do is have three doctors. The GP of the patient and two more chosen at random, so no-one would be able to influence any one beforehand. The patient would need to be spoken to on their own without any members of the family present. They could present their findings to a main body and then it could be decided

Why is this idea important?

All we need to do is have three doctors. The GP of the patient and two more chosen at random, so no-one would be able to influence any one beforehand. The patient would need to be spoken to on their own without any members of the family present. They could present their findings to a main body and then it could be decided

Updating the 1961 Suicide Act

The change in legislation will not disadvantage sick and disabled people who opt for care till  the end – it merely allows mentally competent people to decide when and where they wish to terminate their lives with dignity.

Why is this idea important?

The change in legislation will not disadvantage sick and disabled people who opt for care till  the end – it merely allows mentally competent people to decide when and where they wish to terminate their lives with dignity.

Anti-Smoking Legislation

I notice from the video on the home page that The Deputy Prime Minister listed repealing the anti smoking legislation as an idea already put forward that would NOT be taken up.

However, I have to ask WHY ?

This legislation is unpopular almost universaly with all smokers and is harming the entertainment industry not to mention the fact that die-hard smokers such as myself and my husband have not visited a pub, club, bar or restaurant since the ban was introduced.

Plus as the proprietors of a small business we need more staff but cannot employ anyone due to this legislation as we insist on maintaining our right to smoke in our office and vehicle. We will NOT employ anyone if that would mean that we would have to stop smoking in our working enviroment.

Furthermore, the ban has made us both more defiant. we have pledged NOT to quit smoking as we feel that this legislation is an unjust infringement of our civil rights. We even refuse to allow non-snokers in the car and display signs in every room of our home that enforce the right of visitors to light up at will.

We actively defy this legislation and encourage others to do the same. It is bullying the public and takes away the rights that you claim you want to restore.

Why is this idea important?

I notice from the video on the home page that The Deputy Prime Minister listed repealing the anti smoking legislation as an idea already put forward that would NOT be taken up.

However, I have to ask WHY ?

This legislation is unpopular almost universaly with all smokers and is harming the entertainment industry not to mention the fact that die-hard smokers such as myself and my husband have not visited a pub, club, bar or restaurant since the ban was introduced.

Plus as the proprietors of a small business we need more staff but cannot employ anyone due to this legislation as we insist on maintaining our right to smoke in our office and vehicle. We will NOT employ anyone if that would mean that we would have to stop smoking in our working enviroment.

Furthermore, the ban has made us both more defiant. we have pledged NOT to quit smoking as we feel that this legislation is an unjust infringement of our civil rights. We even refuse to allow non-snokers in the car and display signs in every room of our home that enforce the right of visitors to light up at will.

We actively defy this legislation and encourage others to do the same. It is bullying the public and takes away the rights that you claim you want to restore.

Smoking Ban in Public Houses (From a NON-Smoker)

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Why is this idea important?

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Medical records

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Why is this idea important?

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Legalising Euthanasia

Euthanasia would be a system open to a lot of abuse and snap decisions that people might regret later.  Perhaps a good way to go forward may be to look at legalising it  in the same way as withdrawing feeding from patients in PVS is legalised. 

Every case has to go before a judge based on its own merrit.  This way each person would have the right to present their case, this would take time so it couldn't be a snap decision and it also means that the true motives behind the desire would come to light.

This would enable physically disabled people to have the same human right to life and death as any other individual.  It also means that many people wouldn't suffer needlessly as is the case today.

I do have personal experience with this issue as a close member of my family died of MND.

Why is this idea important?

Euthanasia would be a system open to a lot of abuse and snap decisions that people might regret later.  Perhaps a good way to go forward may be to look at legalising it  in the same way as withdrawing feeding from patients in PVS is legalised. 

Every case has to go before a judge based on its own merrit.  This way each person would have the right to present their case, this would take time so it couldn't be a snap decision and it also means that the true motives behind the desire would come to light.

This would enable physically disabled people to have the same human right to life and death as any other individual.  It also means that many people wouldn't suffer needlessly as is the case today.

I do have personal experience with this issue as a close member of my family died of MND.

Assisted death

That the suicide act and any other relevant acts are updated to allow those who are competent adults and  terminally ill and/or  are permanently incapacitated to the extent of complete dependency with no quality of life to at their request only be allowed to have an assisted death. For those who assist them in this to be free of any charges against them.

If we have a right to life we also have a right to death.

We as individuals also have a right to choose life even if it costs the NHS money .We have a right to have food and liquids continued in hospitals even if there are no clinical benefits if that's what an individual chooses. We also have the right to choose alternative means of getting well outwith the medical profession. This should not be excluded from hospitals merely due to closed minds.

Why is this idea important?

That the suicide act and any other relevant acts are updated to allow those who are competent adults and  terminally ill and/or  are permanently incapacitated to the extent of complete dependency with no quality of life to at their request only be allowed to have an assisted death. For those who assist them in this to be free of any charges against them.

If we have a right to life we also have a right to death.

We as individuals also have a right to choose life even if it costs the NHS money .We have a right to have food and liquids continued in hospitals even if there are no clinical benefits if that's what an individual chooses. We also have the right to choose alternative means of getting well outwith the medical profession. This should not be excluded from hospitals merely due to closed minds.

Protect “confidential” medical records from the authorities

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Personal choice in ending life when terminally ill or with extreme disabillity

I t should not be for others to decide whether we continue to suffer physically and mentally when terminally ill without quality of life,independance or dignity.Equally it should be a personel decision as to whether we continue suffering in a extreme physical and mental  condition that renders life without quality, any form of independance or dignity, and no possibillity of improvement.

Those against assisted dying usually have religious and ethical reasons to support their objections. However, it is not for them to decide  that others with unbearable conditions continue to suffer terminally or without hope of any improvement in their appalling condition.

The disingenuous argument continually used by those against is that  many old people would be coerced to end their lives takes no account that just being old would not be a condition for requesting the ending of life.

I suggest for such for an important act potentially affecting us all individually  a referendum is most appropriate rather than 650 MPs casting  votes according to their own views on how we should all be treated if in such a critical situation.    

Why is this idea important?

I t should not be for others to decide whether we continue to suffer physically and mentally when terminally ill without quality of life,independance or dignity.Equally it should be a personel decision as to whether we continue suffering in a extreme physical and mental  condition that renders life without quality, any form of independance or dignity, and no possibillity of improvement.

Those against assisted dying usually have religious and ethical reasons to support their objections. However, it is not for them to decide  that others with unbearable conditions continue to suffer terminally or without hope of any improvement in their appalling condition.

The disingenuous argument continually used by those against is that  many old people would be coerced to end their lives takes no account that just being old would not be a condition for requesting the ending of life.

I suggest for such for an important act potentially affecting us all individually  a referendum is most appropriate rather than 650 MPs casting  votes according to their own views on how we should all be treated if in such a critical situation.    

Smokefree legislation should apply to all of a business’s premises.

As well as overwhelming public health reasons, smokefree is also about public utility and the local environment. Many families no longer frequent what once were pleasant pub beer gardens due to the concentrated amount of people smoking in the vicinity . Large amounts of cigarrette butts on the ground or in the grass or under tables or overrflowing from ash trays just tends to put families off and is bad for the environment.  Many families also do not want to expose their impressionable children to an area where more people are smoking than not; they also do not feel they can have a pleasant meal or drink outside. A cultural change will come about if smoking is banned on all pub premises. More families and non-smokers (the majority of the population) will give their trade which will help towards the decline in pubs. It needs to be all or nothing and a level playing field for all businesses.

Why is this idea important?

As well as overwhelming public health reasons, smokefree is also about public utility and the local environment. Many families no longer frequent what once were pleasant pub beer gardens due to the concentrated amount of people smoking in the vicinity . Large amounts of cigarrette butts on the ground or in the grass or under tables or overrflowing from ash trays just tends to put families off and is bad for the environment.  Many families also do not want to expose their impressionable children to an area where more people are smoking than not; they also do not feel they can have a pleasant meal or drink outside. A cultural change will come about if smoking is banned on all pub premises. More families and non-smokers (the majority of the population) will give their trade which will help towards the decline in pubs. It needs to be all or nothing and a level playing field for all businesses.

That the Health Act 2006 should be amended so as to forbid smoking in cars.

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

Why is this idea important?

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

The Smoking Ban is Killing the Traditional British Pub

 




          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britains iconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant.   

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become? 

        

Why is this idea important?

 




          The smoking ban has resulted in the loss of civil liberties and threatens the existence of the traditional British pub.

          It is widely accepted that Britains iconic traditional pubs are in grave danger.  They still are an expected feature of the British way of life for visiting tourists and are often the only public places to socialise for many villages and communities. They may be out of fashion now – but once they are gone they will not return.

         The smoking ban has had a major part to play in their decline. Traditional pub goers contained well above the average proportion of smokers.  Many of them have been forced to abandon pubs – in favour of drinking at home.  The idea that this slack would be taken up by an increase in non-smokers has proved dreadfully wrong.  The huge numbers of pub closures bears this out.

         At a glance it may seem that there are still many traditional pubs left.  However, many of them have severely curtailed opening hours and many others have simply become restaurants. The traditional pub was based around a seating arrangement that allowed part of the premises to be a place to drink, chat and have a fag. If someone asks you if you have booked a table, when you enter, or if all the seating is formal dining seating – you are in a restaurant.   

        The smoking ban should be repealed and pubs, clubs, etc. should be given back the right to choose what they offer. Without this I feel that the traditional pub will cease to exist within the next few years. 

         This is clearly a case of the majority dictating to a sizeable minorities civil rights. It would have been perfectly easy to allow pubs and clubs to choose what service they offered and it would have saved thousands of jobs. A society that cannot tolerate minority interests is not a free society. Is that the sort of country we have become? 

        

Illogical prohibitions on purchasing over the counter painkillers

There is a ridiculous rule about not being able to buy more than 2 packets of painkillers at once – no matter what the size is, or the type of painkiller, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It means I could buy 2 x 50 paracetomol…… but not 3 x 20….. it means I can't buy 2 x 12 paracetomol and 2 x 12 ibuprofen, even though these are different drugs that work in different ways and can be used together quite safely. It means that if you need to take painkillers regularly, e.g. for arthritis, you are forever having to buy them instead of being able to buy a decent supply in one go. It is mindless nonense! If it is meant to protect people at risk of overdose – rubbish – I could go to 3 shops in the same street which all sell paracetomol say, and buy more than enough that way to kill myself! Frankly, if you are suicidal, a stupid rule like this is very unlikely to hinder you. 

Why is this idea important?

There is a ridiculous rule about not being able to buy more than 2 packets of painkillers at once – no matter what the size is, or the type of painkiller, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It means I could buy 2 x 50 paracetomol…… but not 3 x 20….. it means I can't buy 2 x 12 paracetomol and 2 x 12 ibuprofen, even though these are different drugs that work in different ways and can be used together quite safely. It means that if you need to take painkillers regularly, e.g. for arthritis, you are forever having to buy them instead of being able to buy a decent supply in one go. It is mindless nonense! If it is meant to protect people at risk of overdose – rubbish – I could go to 3 shops in the same street which all sell paracetomol say, and buy more than enough that way to kill myself! Frankly, if you are suicidal, a stupid rule like this is very unlikely to hinder you. 

Keep the Right to Homeopathy on the NHS

The Royal Homeopathic Hospital and some others provide a good service that is, in my experience, as effective as conventional medication. There has been a witch hunt against homeopathy in recent years and it is under threat. I wish to  protect my right to homeopathy on the NHS, and l propose that it should be available nationally, not just a postcode lottery.

Why is this idea important?

The Royal Homeopathic Hospital and some others provide a good service that is, in my experience, as effective as conventional medication. There has been a witch hunt against homeopathy in recent years and it is under threat. I wish to  protect my right to homeopathy on the NHS, and l propose that it should be available nationally, not just a postcode lottery.

freedom of choice

I believe licencees should be given freedom of choice to nominate their establishments as either smoking or non smoking.  Failing that, a licencee should be able to establish a separate facility ie another room, for smokers.  The licencee should be able to employ a person who smokes themselves or doesnt mind smokers.

Why is this idea important?

I believe licencees should be given freedom of choice to nominate their establishments as either smoking or non smoking.  Failing that, a licencee should be able to establish a separate facility ie another room, for smokers.  The licencee should be able to employ a person who smokes themselves or doesnt mind smokers.

Amending the smoking ban

The smoking ban was far too draconian.  Smoking in pubs is a tradition (for smokers); a drink and a cigarette.  While appreciating that not all people want to experience the smokey atmosphere, there is a far better way of dealing with this issue.  Have licenced smokers' pubs – these would be pubs not serving food; landlord/landladies would apply for a licence and pay for it – they can then charge more for drinks (smokers would be willing to pay).

Non-smokers would know it is a smokers pub and can choose not to enter.  Non-smokers looking for bar work would also be able to choose whether to apply for work at a known smokers' pub or not.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban was far too draconian.  Smoking in pubs is a tradition (for smokers); a drink and a cigarette.  While appreciating that not all people want to experience the smokey atmosphere, there is a far better way of dealing with this issue.  Have licenced smokers' pubs – these would be pubs not serving food; landlord/landladies would apply for a licence and pay for it – they can then charge more for drinks (smokers would be willing to pay).

Non-smokers would know it is a smokers pub and can choose not to enter.  Non-smokers looking for bar work would also be able to choose whether to apply for work at a known smokers' pub or not.