Remove the needless prohibition on drugs.

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

Rules for regulation of Cannabis Cultivation for personal use by adults in private

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Why is this idea important?

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Irrefutable proof that the prohibition of marijuana is immoral.

The two main reasons given for the illegality of marijuana is that firstly it may cause cancer, and secondly it may lead to mental illness. Neither of these claims have any significant proof behind them. Look at the evidence, there is no firm proof that cannabis is harmful like alcohol and tobacco, however I will try and avoid pointing this out as cannabis should not be made legal just because it is less bad then the two most lethal drugs out there. Instead I will try and make a logical and irrefutable argument against the prohibition of marijuana.

Marijuana is a plant and THC is a drug inside the plant. If the government were justified in making marijuana illegal then surely the more THC within the plant the more harm the user would come to from smoking marijuana however that simply is not true. A hash (concentrated extract of marijuana) smoker has to smoke less to achieve their high so the risk of cancer coming about from burning side products of the plant are reduced. So by making marijuana illegal you have essentially made it more harmful to the users health, turned it from something which is VERY unlikely to cause cancer, and in fact has been shown to have a curative effect on some cancers (inhaling a small amount of hash smoke) to something that may or may not cause cancer (smoking herbal cannabis).

Furthermore prohibition hasn't prevented cannabis use, it has merely pushed the profits in to the hands of the dealers at great expense of the tax payer. Dealers are now cutting their cannabis with fibreglass beads in order to add weight, while nobody really knows the negative side effects of smoking fibreglass it cannot be good for you. This is a huge problem effecting nearly all herbal "Skunk" sold in the UK. This is getting ridiculous, prohibition is stopping nobody but it is harming everybody's health. If THC were truly a harmful drug then hash would be worse for you then herbal cannabis not better for you. As their doesn't seem to be any reason to keep cannabis illegal why keep going?

Why is this idea important?

The two main reasons given for the illegality of marijuana is that firstly it may cause cancer, and secondly it may lead to mental illness. Neither of these claims have any significant proof behind them. Look at the evidence, there is no firm proof that cannabis is harmful like alcohol and tobacco, however I will try and avoid pointing this out as cannabis should not be made legal just because it is less bad then the two most lethal drugs out there. Instead I will try and make a logical and irrefutable argument against the prohibition of marijuana.

Marijuana is a plant and THC is a drug inside the plant. If the government were justified in making marijuana illegal then surely the more THC within the plant the more harm the user would come to from smoking marijuana however that simply is not true. A hash (concentrated extract of marijuana) smoker has to smoke less to achieve their high so the risk of cancer coming about from burning side products of the plant are reduced. So by making marijuana illegal you have essentially made it more harmful to the users health, turned it from something which is VERY unlikely to cause cancer, and in fact has been shown to have a curative effect on some cancers (inhaling a small amount of hash smoke) to something that may or may not cause cancer (smoking herbal cannabis).

Furthermore prohibition hasn't prevented cannabis use, it has merely pushed the profits in to the hands of the dealers at great expense of the tax payer. Dealers are now cutting their cannabis with fibreglass beads in order to add weight, while nobody really knows the negative side effects of smoking fibreglass it cannot be good for you. This is a huge problem effecting nearly all herbal "Skunk" sold in the UK. This is getting ridiculous, prohibition is stopping nobody but it is harming everybody's health. If THC were truly a harmful drug then hash would be worse for you then herbal cannabis not better for you. As their doesn't seem to be any reason to keep cannabis illegal why keep going?

Amend the ‘misuse of drugs act 1971’

The classification and prohibition status of drugs should be based on robust scientific assessment of the harms caused by the use of specific substances. Such classification should be independent of arbitrary political whims.

Studies including- 

Drug classification: making a hash of it?, Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee

and

Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse, David Nutt, Leslie A. King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore, The Lancet, 24 March 2007

have repeatedly shown that the present system of drug classification as ordered under the act is based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment. To quote from the second source, the act is "not fit for purpose" and "the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary."

The act should be amended to abolish the role of the 'advisory council on the misuse of drugs' which has been shown to be subject to political influence, eliminate the role of the Home Secretary in drug classification as there is no independent oversight of his decision making and no necessary scientific validity to this role, and establish instead an independent organisation that is strictly regulated to follow and abide by the scientific method in the classification of drugs.

The staff and organisation of the existing 'independent scientific committee on drugs', established by Professor David Nutt, would be suitable to fill this role.

Why is this idea important?

The classification and prohibition status of drugs should be based on robust scientific assessment of the harms caused by the use of specific substances. Such classification should be independent of arbitrary political whims.

Studies including- 

Drug classification: making a hash of it?, Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee

and

Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse, David Nutt, Leslie A. King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore, The Lancet, 24 March 2007

have repeatedly shown that the present system of drug classification as ordered under the act is based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment. To quote from the second source, the act is "not fit for purpose" and "the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary."

The act should be amended to abolish the role of the 'advisory council on the misuse of drugs' which has been shown to be subject to political influence, eliminate the role of the Home Secretary in drug classification as there is no independent oversight of his decision making and no necessary scientific validity to this role, and establish instead an independent organisation that is strictly regulated to follow and abide by the scientific method in the classification of drugs.

The staff and organisation of the existing 'independent scientific committee on drugs', established by Professor David Nutt, would be suitable to fill this role.

Legalising not legalizing drugs.

I have paracetamols at home which can be dangerous but no one comes and breaks my door also I like the comment of the person who spoke of poisonous flowers in peoples gardens no one does anything about. But I doubt any policy won’t come with it’s own problems, you could get lots of people on mind altering drugs surely not agreeing with those who aren’t on any. If you put a tax there will be a black market too. If you legalize them the nhs would suffer and if you put a limit on consumption they ‘ ll find it funny

Why is this idea important?

I have paracetamols at home which can be dangerous but no one comes and breaks my door also I like the comment of the person who spoke of poisonous flowers in peoples gardens no one does anything about. But I doubt any policy won’t come with it’s own problems, you could get lots of people on mind altering drugs surely not agreeing with those who aren’t on any. If you put a tax there will be a black market too. If you legalize them the nhs would suffer and if you put a limit on consumption they ‘ ll find it funny

Legalise Cannabis cultivation for Medical/Personal use & introduce a growing Lisence, similar to a fishing lisence

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.