Cannabis and the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Support Professor David Nutt: We want an evidence based drugs policy

put profesor David Nutt and his indipendent group the ISCD ( http://www.drugscience.org.uk/ ) back in the helm and reconise the counter measures of prohibition

Why is this idea important?

put profesor David Nutt and his indipendent group the ISCD ( http://www.drugscience.org.uk/ ) back in the helm and reconise the counter measures of prohibition

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.

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.

Legalise Recreational Drugs

Ignore the front pages of the Daily Mail and actually answer the question why are drugs banned.

It comes down to choice – i chose to take drugs or i chose not to .. at no point should the government enter this debate, yes we should have the facts like we do with cigarettes and alcohol, and yes they should be taxed.

 

Why is this idea important?

Ignore the front pages of the Daily Mail and actually answer the question why are drugs banned.

It comes down to choice – i chose to take drugs or i chose not to .. at no point should the government enter this debate, yes we should have the facts like we do with cigarettes and alcohol, and yes they should be taxed.