Cannabis legalisation

When John Stuart Mill wrote 'On Liberty', he argued that a government should only involve itself in the personal affairs of an individual if they were harming another citizen. It is by this harm principle that believe that cannabis prohibition should end in this country. It is an unfair policy which criminalises those who use the drug, turning normal people into criminals, purely because they use a cannabis, a drug which research has shown to help such illness's as Alzheimer's disease, preventing lung cancer, helping brain cancer and many other such illness's. It is an individuals right to choose for his or herself what is best for themselves. 

I propose,

1.personal possession of cannabis decriminalised 

2.an individual will be able to grow up to three cannabis plants for personal use

3.That cannabis sold in a commercial setting should be regulated, a minimum age to buy it and a sin tax attached. 

Why is this idea important?

When John Stuart Mill wrote 'On Liberty', he argued that a government should only involve itself in the personal affairs of an individual if they were harming another citizen. It is by this harm principle that believe that cannabis prohibition should end in this country. It is an unfair policy which criminalises those who use the drug, turning normal people into criminals, purely because they use a cannabis, a drug which research has shown to help such illness's as Alzheimer's disease, preventing lung cancer, helping brain cancer and many other such illness's. It is an individuals right to choose for his or herself what is best for themselves. 

I propose,

1.personal possession of cannabis decriminalised 

2.an individual will be able to grow up to three cannabis plants for personal use

3.That cannabis sold in a commercial setting should be regulated, a minimum age to buy it and a sin tax attached. 

End Cannabis prohibition

The argument for the legalisation of cannabis has been repeated ad nauseum on this site, i dont believe i am even required to adumbrate the vast plethora of favourable evidence weighted behind my title. Conversely, i am yet to see any reputable counter points made. If the current government will insist on the continued criminalisation of a huge number of inoccent tax paying UK citizens it should at least engage in open, informed debate on the subject, preferably in a public forum allowing for expert input. It would be a huge step forward to accept informed logic and discourse as opposed to the histerical pseudo journalistic rantings of the fascist soft porn comic tabloid press. 

Why is this idea important?

The argument for the legalisation of cannabis has been repeated ad nauseum on this site, i dont believe i am even required to adumbrate the vast plethora of favourable evidence weighted behind my title. Conversely, i am yet to see any reputable counter points made. If the current government will insist on the continued criminalisation of a huge number of inoccent tax paying UK citizens it should at least engage in open, informed debate on the subject, preferably in a public forum allowing for expert input. It would be a huge step forward to accept informed logic and discourse as opposed to the histerical pseudo journalistic rantings of the fascist soft porn comic tabloid press. 

the governement anser to cannabis users on 6/08/2010

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

Why is this idea important?

so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is

 

Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis

Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.

Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.

The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.

He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.

The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.

The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.

"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."

The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.

Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.

The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.

"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."

Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.

So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs

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.
 

Why our drug laws are not working

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

What are our drug laws for ?

What are our drug laws for ? What purpose are they meant to serve ?

Are they to protect individuals (from themselves) or to protect society ?

Either way it is obvious that our current policies have failed on both counts.

 How are individuals protected if

  • they are forced to deal with criminal gangs
  • the drugs they buy are contaminated
  • the drugs they buy are of unknown strength
  • they are discouraged from seeking medical help (for fear of attracting police attention)
  • they are forced into prostitution or theft to “feed” their habit

 How is society protected if

  • criminal gangs make huge profits
  • organised gangs compete for these profits
  • police time is spent arresting and prosecuting users
  • muggings, thefts and burglaries are carried out by drug users
  • prisons are filled with drug users
  • criminal and terrorist groups (in e.g. Colombia and Afghanistan) get massive funding

Our laws should be based on a proper, scientific investigation into the potential harm to individuals that drugs may cause. We have to accept that banning certain drugs has not stopped large numbers of people experimenting with them. We must also accept that of all the potential health and social problems caused by drug use by far the greatest harm results from criminalising users. 

There is also an elephant in the room ignored by all politicians and newspaper editors. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more individual harm and expense to society than illegal drugs, but they are tolerated on the grounds of personal freedom. It is merely historical accident that these two were in widespread use before tabloid hysteria dictated political policy.

If the distribution and sale of drugs was controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, society would save the millions currently spent on the futile attempt to eradicate their use. It would also make fiscal sense in the current climate to tax drug sales. I would much rather the huge profits went to the exchequer rather than some drug baron (and, somewhere up the supply chain, the Taleban).

The potential dangers must of course be made very clear and steps taken to prevent use by children, but surely it is not beyond us to put controls in place.

Are any politicians willing to face up to the inevitable tabloid outrage and propose a rational drugs policy ?

Why is this idea important?

What are our drug laws for ? What purpose are they meant to serve ?

Are they to protect individuals (from themselves) or to protect society ?

Either way it is obvious that our current policies have failed on both counts.

 How are individuals protected if

  • they are forced to deal with criminal gangs
  • the drugs they buy are contaminated
  • the drugs they buy are of unknown strength
  • they are discouraged from seeking medical help (for fear of attracting police attention)
  • they are forced into prostitution or theft to “feed” their habit

 How is society protected if

  • criminal gangs make huge profits
  • organised gangs compete for these profits
  • police time is spent arresting and prosecuting users
  • muggings, thefts and burglaries are carried out by drug users
  • prisons are filled with drug users
  • criminal and terrorist groups (in e.g. Colombia and Afghanistan) get massive funding

Our laws should be based on a proper, scientific investigation into the potential harm to individuals that drugs may cause. We have to accept that banning certain drugs has not stopped large numbers of people experimenting with them. We must also accept that of all the potential health and social problems caused by drug use by far the greatest harm results from criminalising users. 

There is also an elephant in the room ignored by all politicians and newspaper editors. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more individual harm and expense to society than illegal drugs, but they are tolerated on the grounds of personal freedom. It is merely historical accident that these two were in widespread use before tabloid hysteria dictated political policy.

If the distribution and sale of drugs was controlled in the same way as alcohol and tobacco, society would save the millions currently spent on the futile attempt to eradicate their use. It would also make fiscal sense in the current climate to tax drug sales. I would much rather the huge profits went to the exchequer rather than some drug baron (and, somewhere up the supply chain, the Taleban).

The potential dangers must of course be made very clear and steps taken to prevent use by children, but surely it is not beyond us to put controls in place.

Are any politicians willing to face up to the inevitable tabloid outrage and propose a rational drugs policy ?

Repealing (or radically amending) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Repeal and change the Smoking Ban

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.

In its placeĀ could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.