Repeal current Drug laws. Replace based on Science not Politics

Our current Drug laws are not working. They are regularly amended by politians to appeal to various sections of voters. The scientific community are best placed to give an unbiased assessment of the dangers of each intoxicant.

We should repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act and replace it with one based on scientific evidence, not media-led populist scare-stories. Social and Economic expertise can inform practical mechanisms for controlling drug use.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Our current Drug laws are not working. They are regularly amended by politians to appeal to various sections of voters. The scientific community are best placed to give an unbiased assessment of the dangers of each intoxicant.

We should repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act and replace it with one based on scientific evidence, not media-led populist scare-stories. Social and Economic expertise can inform practical mechanisms for controlling drug use.

 

 

 

End free social abortions on the NHS

It would be better if there were no abortions, but we live in a democracy which has voted for women to have the right to have an abortion subject to certain conditions.  In practice, however, since 1967 the country has seemed to have moved from a situation where two eminent physicians might be up all night agonising on whether an abortion was appropriate in a particular case to one where abortion seems a right available on demand.   Repeat social abortions for the same person are also increasing.  Consideration should be given to not having any social abortions freely available on the NHS.  All social abortion applications on the NHS should be means tested, while retaining free treatment only for those abortions which would meet the Amnesty criteria.

Why is this idea important?

It would be better if there were no abortions, but we live in a democracy which has voted for women to have the right to have an abortion subject to certain conditions.  In practice, however, since 1967 the country has seemed to have moved from a situation where two eminent physicians might be up all night agonising on whether an abortion was appropriate in a particular case to one where abortion seems a right available on demand.   Repeat social abortions for the same person are also increasing.  Consideration should be given to not having any social abortions freely available on the NHS.  All social abortion applications on the NHS should be means tested, while retaining free treatment only for those abortions which would meet the Amnesty criteria.

over the counter drugs

Change (upwards) the number of asprins, paracetamol etc tabs one can buy on a visit to the chemist as it only increases packaging and cost to the user. Currently you can only buy 32 paracetamol per visit so you have to drive back for more – or walk to the other chemists in the vicinity thus negating the control – crazy!

Why is this idea important?

Change (upwards) the number of asprins, paracetamol etc tabs one can buy on a visit to the chemist as it only increases packaging and cost to the user. Currently you can only buy 32 paracetamol per visit so you have to drive back for more – or walk to the other chemists in the vicinity thus negating the control – crazy!

Review restrictions on prescription drugs

Some mild antibiotics such as Amoxicillin and Terramycin could be sold over the pharmacy counter without a prescription.

Other drugs which are taken long term (usually a lifetime) such as cholesterol and diabetes medication should be prescribed if requested on one year prescriptions rather than making the patient return for repeat prescriptions often because that is more profitable from the surgery, the pharmacy and the NHS.

Why is this idea important?

Some mild antibiotics such as Amoxicillin and Terramycin could be sold over the pharmacy counter without a prescription.

Other drugs which are taken long term (usually a lifetime) such as cholesterol and diabetes medication should be prescribed if requested on one year prescriptions rather than making the patient return for repeat prescriptions often because that is more profitable from the surgery, the pharmacy and the NHS.

Review of pharmacists’ power over birth control

In pharmacies, the pharmacist can reject requests for the morning after pill based on moral grounds. I feel that this is far too much power from one person over an issue that does not concern them along with too much interference over someone's life. If this power is taken away from pharmacists then accessing birth control will be easier. It should not be up to the pharmacist to determine a woman's pregnancy, it is unfair and places too much power in the hands of a stranger.

Why is this idea important?

In pharmacies, the pharmacist can reject requests for the morning after pill based on moral grounds. I feel that this is far too much power from one person over an issue that does not concern them along with too much interference over someone's life. If this power is taken away from pharmacists then accessing birth control will be easier. It should not be up to the pharmacist to determine a woman's pregnancy, it is unfair and places too much power in the hands of a stranger.

Repeal the Corporate Manslaughter Act

This Act means that companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Now accountability is good but there is always an equal and opposite reaction in life and teh reaction to this law is disproportionate to its intention. Every employee is now fearful of making a mistake so they overcompensate which means more money spent stopping things that aren't proably going to happen anyway.

This Act has helped push Health and safety legislation away from its core purpose which was to actually stop people being hurt and NOT to stop people worry about being sued if someone got hurt.

One small example – high visibility jackets. They used to be the uniform of highway workers helping them to be seen. Now they are everywhere, on every building site and every warehouse in the land. Mostly worn by poeple not near fast moving traffic that needs to pick you out in dark conditions. How much is the annual cost to business of these jackets? And remember they are only included in risk assessments because someone thinks they'd better cover themselves in case they get sued. They're not in teh risk assessment because they are needed to prevent accidents.

Why is this idea important?

This Act means that companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Now accountability is good but there is always an equal and opposite reaction in life and teh reaction to this law is disproportionate to its intention. Every employee is now fearful of making a mistake so they overcompensate which means more money spent stopping things that aren't proably going to happen anyway.

This Act has helped push Health and safety legislation away from its core purpose which was to actually stop people being hurt and NOT to stop people worry about being sued if someone got hurt.

One small example – high visibility jackets. They used to be the uniform of highway workers helping them to be seen. Now they are everywhere, on every building site and every warehouse in the land. Mostly worn by poeple not near fast moving traffic that needs to pick you out in dark conditions. How much is the annual cost to business of these jackets? And remember they are only included in risk assessments because someone thinks they'd better cover themselves in case they get sued. They're not in teh risk assessment because they are needed to prevent accidents.

The Right to Frontline Medication.

Everyone should have a right to frontline medication whether they live in London or they live in Newcastle

Overhaul of the Primary care trust and Health Authorities.

Aim the care at peoples health, quality of life and not money and stats.

The right to frontline medication for suffferers of Narcolepsy and Cataplexy.

WAKE UP TO NARCOLEPSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Everyone should have a right to frontline medication whether they live in London or they live in Newcastle

Overhaul of the Primary care trust and Health Authorities.

Aim the care at peoples health, quality of life and not money and stats.

The right to frontline medication for suffferers of Narcolepsy and Cataplexy.

WAKE UP TO NARCOLEPSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Motion Pertaining To The Legalisation Of Cannabis.

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

Why is this idea important?

It is no secret that the decades old process of prohibition has failed completely to limit the distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK. The only people to have ever benefited from the policy of prohibition has been and continues to be the black market criminal. Instead of taking advantage of the massive revenue of the entire cannabis trade, the UK prefers to hand this golden egg to criminals. Thus such revenue streams disappear, never to benefit British society while simultaneously, we feed the black market in a never ending viscous circle.

As the law stands on narcotic legislation, a drug is to be criminalised if it poses a direct risk to society and the individual. Taking this into account, cannabis cannot possibly constitute an equal risk to society or the individual as that of alcohol. Alcohol kills more people in the UK than any other illegal drug put together. It places an immeasurable stress on the NHS, results in open violence in our streets and homes, is the cause of much misery and crime and addicts the user relatively easily. Yet it is legal, despite the law. As Cannabis does none of the above, in fact it promotes a more harmonious way of life, why is the government telling society that the only choice for rest and relaxation is a drug more dangerous than the alternative? Why are we forced into drinking as the only legal means of getting high? As an adult, one should be able to have a choice in what they wish to indulge in, in terms of rest and relaxation substances. It is simply unethical and unjust to state that alcohol is a more acceptable drug than cannabis.

Our prisons are over crowded forcing the government to lessen the deterrent effect of prison in general and allowing some violent offenders to serve less time or not go in to prison at all. The effect of legalisation in terms of lessening the prison population would be significant. Indeed, current prisoners incarcerated for cultivation or possession could be viewed as "prisoners of conscience" as their crime hurts nobody and therefore is a victimless crime. The police would also benefit by being able to divert their resources to serious crime instead. It is no secret that the arrest of a cannabis user is an easy way to artificially raise crime statistics in the UK. It is morally and ethically wrong to criminalise a person for choosing to relax by using cannabis. Other than this one grey area, the user is statistically a perfectly law abiding, tax paying and upstanding citizen. It is unjust in the extreme to criminalise the adult individual and force them in to the shadows of a society that they fully contribute to and do no harm to what so ever. Such a move as legalisation would reflect favourably on our society by emancipating millions of people to live life in the open as legitimate citizens, beneficial to society.

The medical use of cannabis is well documented and successfully launched in several states in the USA as well as in other European countries. Cannabis has substantial medical qualities and eases the life of millions for a multitude of different illnesses. Why is it that the government insists that our society base itself solely on pharmaceutical drugs when they cause such terrible side effects? There is, as millions will concur, a far safer, 100% natural and more enjoyable alternative. Cannabis is cheaper to produce and more effective at easing the ailments of the sick user. Now, we all know that smoking is bad for you, yet there is still no argument that therefore, cannabis is bad for you as it can be consumed orally or by means of a vaporizer with no medical consequences. Again, it is unjust, unsympathetic, unethical and immoral to deprive the sick of a drug that is proven to be of such medicinal value. As for the argument of cannabis and schizophrenia, well that is simply nonsense. Scientific research has proven a 2% risk of permanent mental dis-function in regular users. Therefore, such risks are insignificant when balanced against the risks associated with alcohol. Are we really such a society that would prefer to criminalise the sick instead of help them by any means possible? I refuse to think so and live in hope that our collective humanity and decency will eventually make it’s way to the parliamentary table.

Taking our current economic crisis into account, has the time not finally arrived when necessity dictates that cannabis is legalised and regulated through proper medical channels and taxed? Britain could help to solve her debt crisis almost over night; massively increased tax revenue, an explosion of new small to medium businesses, increased tourism, decreased prison population, freed up police force, the advancement of British medical science and an increase of GDP within the UK Hemp industry. Currently 100% of all this cash goes straight into the hands of the black market, benefiting nobody but the criminal and that is, frankly, a senseless waist of revenue. There are currently 6 million adult cannabis user’s in the UK and 11 million casual adult users. Being government statistics, one can assume a much higher real usage throughout Britain. To deny the country such a massive instant revenue windfall in a time of such austerity is madness. The maths is not difficult, legalisation makes rational sense. Is it not time for the UK to collectively wake up to the reality of the situation and consider another far more reasonable, rational and ethical approach to managing the issue of social drug use?

We could liberate millions while simultaneously improving our economy and society. Instead of being seen as an evil psychotic menace perhaps cannabis will one day be seen as our saving grace. At the same time society will see that adults are able to self regulate and children will lose interest due to the lifting of the magnetic effect of a teenager and an illegal substance mixed with greater regulation and a reduction in the black market. Britain would follow Holland in years to come whereby they would have among the lowest population of drug abusers in the world.

I hope that I have been able to convince you of the merits of cannabis legalisation. In my opinion, it is a simple, rational and logical argument for the social equality of millions of our citizens. It is the just and correct thing to do in a modern and apparently open society.

Smoking Ban

As a smoker, I have no objections to the smoking ban in public places – except pubs. This was a move too far by the previous government. What should have happened, was what some other countries have done, and that is simply a mixture of some pubs that allow smoking, and some that do not. That way ,everyone has a choice. The health argument about passive smoking is one of the biggest deceptions by the government at the time. And here is the reason for my statement. If you live in a large city, you breathe in more toxic fumes from the internal combustion engine than you ever will from passive smoking. I am not claiming that there are no dangers from second hand smoke, but I am claiming that there are more dangers breathing in all the toxins from traffic fumes.

My idea is simple. Alter the smoking ban law to allow smoking in some pubs and give us smokers our life back.

Why is this idea important?

As a smoker, I have no objections to the smoking ban in public places – except pubs. This was a move too far by the previous government. What should have happened, was what some other countries have done, and that is simply a mixture of some pubs that allow smoking, and some that do not. That way ,everyone has a choice. The health argument about passive smoking is one of the biggest deceptions by the government at the time. And here is the reason for my statement. If you live in a large city, you breathe in more toxic fumes from the internal combustion engine than you ever will from passive smoking. I am not claiming that there are no dangers from second hand smoke, but I am claiming that there are more dangers breathing in all the toxins from traffic fumes.

My idea is simple. Alter the smoking ban law to allow smoking in some pubs and give us smokers our life back.

Stop focusing specifically on the ‘obesity crisis’

Yes, Britain is fat. Yes, we need to have healthy eating regimes and programmes for excersise for our children so that in the future, heart disease and all manner of other ailments can be reduced. Yes, the public need to be aware of what constitutes an unsafe diet and how to incorporate activity on a day to day basis so that we can all remain ticking over nicely.

 

However, there are many other eating disorders out there that also affect millions and millions of people all over the UK. Anorexia and Bulimia are some of the most prevelant eating disorders in society today and most of the time, we have no idea that they are happening. Anorexia kills on average, 10% of all sufferers and can leave others with irreversable organ damage, osteoporosis and infertility.
From personal experience, I have met more people at my college suffering from either of these disoders than I have met overweight induviduals. I understand that this is only one specific place, but I find this emphasises the problem to see that there are more young people wanting to starve themselves than there are people binge eating purely at my institution. What does that say about the rest of the UK?

I think there should be much more awareness at present about these disorders, considering they affect 1.1 million young people a year . Males and females alike are bombarded by rediculous advertising images of 'perfect' models pretty much dictating how they should look. Newspapers and magazines are filled with fad celebrity diet plans and lists of who appears fat or not. I think it's disgusting.

So, to summarise – Keep awareness high on the obesity crisis, BUT also include other disorders on the same level. Binge eating itself is disordered and I think these should all be grouped together so that we can determine what is safe to do about the situations we are faced with. 

Having suffered from Anorexia myself, there was a disgusting lack of available help in my area and after being passed from place to place, I'm left feeling demotivated and unwilling to try and recover. I WANT to, but the help just isn't there. If the government need a place to spend their money, I feel this is one thing that would help millions of young people UK wide if it was put into place. 

Why is this idea important?

Yes, Britain is fat. Yes, we need to have healthy eating regimes and programmes for excersise for our children so that in the future, heart disease and all manner of other ailments can be reduced. Yes, the public need to be aware of what constitutes an unsafe diet and how to incorporate activity on a day to day basis so that we can all remain ticking over nicely.

 

However, there are many other eating disorders out there that also affect millions and millions of people all over the UK. Anorexia and Bulimia are some of the most prevelant eating disorders in society today and most of the time, we have no idea that they are happening. Anorexia kills on average, 10% of all sufferers and can leave others with irreversable organ damage, osteoporosis and infertility.
From personal experience, I have met more people at my college suffering from either of these disoders than I have met overweight induviduals. I understand that this is only one specific place, but I find this emphasises the problem to see that there are more young people wanting to starve themselves than there are people binge eating purely at my institution. What does that say about the rest of the UK?

I think there should be much more awareness at present about these disorders, considering they affect 1.1 million young people a year . Males and females alike are bombarded by rediculous advertising images of 'perfect' models pretty much dictating how they should look. Newspapers and magazines are filled with fad celebrity diet plans and lists of who appears fat or not. I think it's disgusting.

So, to summarise – Keep awareness high on the obesity crisis, BUT also include other disorders on the same level. Binge eating itself is disordered and I think these should all be grouped together so that we can determine what is safe to do about the situations we are faced with. 

Having suffered from Anorexia myself, there was a disgusting lack of available help in my area and after being passed from place to place, I'm left feeling demotivated and unwilling to try and recover. I WANT to, but the help just isn't there. If the government need a place to spend their money, I feel this is one thing that would help millions of young people UK wide if it was put into place. 

Regular Mandatory Sight Examinations for all Drivers

That all drivers are required by law to have regular sight examinations and the person carryng out the examination has to make a report to the DVLA in order for that person to continue to drive.

Why is this idea important?

That all drivers are required by law to have regular sight examinations and the person carryng out the examination has to make a report to the DVLA in order for that person to continue to drive.

Repeal the EU Directive on Food Supplements

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

Why is this idea important?

The EU directive on food supplements took away many vitamins, mineral and supplements from our shelves.

It is known by science that our modern diets are too low in nutrients and that this causes disease.

Allow us to make our own choces about what we buy for our own health with our own money and repeal this directive.

 

Allow pharmacy staff to hand-over prescriptions

There seems to be no possibility collecting a prescription, which is in a sealed and labelled bag, from a pharmacy unless the pharmacist is available.

This does not prevent any prescriptions being given out to the wrong person, nor does it prevent the wrong medicines being put into the bag in the first place. It simply inconveniences the customer, and puts pressure on the pharmacy either to employ two pharmacists or restrict the pharmacist's free time. If the pharmacist is sick or has transport problems, then nobody can get the medication which may well be ready for them to collect, until a locum is arranged.

I don't know if this is as a result of direct legislation,eg "only the pharmacist can supply prescription medicine" , "a pharmacist must be present whenever…" or yet another over-eager application of "Health and Safety" legislation.

Either way, it is a nonsense.  Rarely, an individual needs to speak to a (usually busy) pharmacist: he/she would just have to wait, as is presently the case.

Why is this idea important?

There seems to be no possibility collecting a prescription, which is in a sealed and labelled bag, from a pharmacy unless the pharmacist is available.

This does not prevent any prescriptions being given out to the wrong person, nor does it prevent the wrong medicines being put into the bag in the first place. It simply inconveniences the customer, and puts pressure on the pharmacy either to employ two pharmacists or restrict the pharmacist's free time. If the pharmacist is sick or has transport problems, then nobody can get the medication which may well be ready for them to collect, until a locum is arranged.

I don't know if this is as a result of direct legislation,eg "only the pharmacist can supply prescription medicine" , "a pharmacist must be present whenever…" or yet another over-eager application of "Health and Safety" legislation.

Either way, it is a nonsense.  Rarely, an individual needs to speak to a (usually busy) pharmacist: he/she would just have to wait, as is presently the case.

Reduce Application Process Waiting Times

At the moment, application process is taking longer that 10 for a simple and straight forward application. Public can't travel anywhere in the time of application process because UKBA hold thier passport for visa endorsment. I would like to advise UK government to reduce application process waiting times because it's affect health problems for applicant.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, application process is taking longer that 10 for a simple and straight forward application. Public can't travel anywhere in the time of application process because UKBA hold thier passport for visa endorsment. I would like to advise UK government to reduce application process waiting times because it's affect health problems for applicant.

Smoking in line with Europe

The UK government is supposedly continually striving to catch up with implementing EU laws into the UK. I recently passed through Holland and Germany and found that a rest stop had no table that was not kitted out with a bright black ashtray in the middle ready to use, not one table. Ironically as a smoker i think this myself is wrong. A recent visit to spain where i met with a fellow smoker who lived there i asked how the smoking ban had gone down. His response was that everyone more or less ignored it including bar and restaurant owners and that they found it funny that when the Brits cam over they would go outside for a cigarette automatically whereas the locals often did not bother.

The UK had smoking in public places especially bars and restaurants under control. All smoking areas where clearly signed and in many cases isolated from the rest of the premises. We had better and more stringent laws than most of the rest of Europe. As usual we crucified ourselves with draconian laws that now ensure that in a country that certainly does not have the climate people huddle outside simply to have a cigarette. Until smoking is made illegal and taxes no longer collected we are asking the government to provide the smoker with facilities adequate for having a cigarette in comfort and to ensure like the famous minority laws that exist that we are protected from what is steadily becoming overt victimisation towards the smoker.        

Why is this idea important?

The UK government is supposedly continually striving to catch up with implementing EU laws into the UK. I recently passed through Holland and Germany and found that a rest stop had no table that was not kitted out with a bright black ashtray in the middle ready to use, not one table. Ironically as a smoker i think this myself is wrong. A recent visit to spain where i met with a fellow smoker who lived there i asked how the smoking ban had gone down. His response was that everyone more or less ignored it including bar and restaurant owners and that they found it funny that when the Brits cam over they would go outside for a cigarette automatically whereas the locals often did not bother.

The UK had smoking in public places especially bars and restaurants under control. All smoking areas where clearly signed and in many cases isolated from the rest of the premises. We had better and more stringent laws than most of the rest of Europe. As usual we crucified ourselves with draconian laws that now ensure that in a country that certainly does not have the climate people huddle outside simply to have a cigarette. Until smoking is made illegal and taxes no longer collected we are asking the government to provide the smoker with facilities adequate for having a cigarette in comfort and to ensure like the famous minority laws that exist that we are protected from what is steadily becoming overt victimisation towards the smoker.        

Transparancy in nutritional labeling standards for food

Currently supermarkets are getting away with making food seem healthier by bunging in whey powder, cheese powder etc into products that never traditionally had them (bread/crackers etc) so as to make the protein ratio higher, thereby making the fat & sugar percentages look lower. This is hoodwinking the public & completely unnacceptable. It's also making things more difficult for those with dairy allergies, vegans etc as they have to scrutinise ingredient lists for milk products where they would never before expect to find them.

Why is this idea important?

Currently supermarkets are getting away with making food seem healthier by bunging in whey powder, cheese powder etc into products that never traditionally had them (bread/crackers etc) so as to make the protein ratio higher, thereby making the fat & sugar percentages look lower. This is hoodwinking the public & completely unnacceptable. It's also making things more difficult for those with dairy allergies, vegans etc as they have to scrutinise ingredient lists for milk products where they would never before expect to find them.

Repeal H&S Law Banning 2-in-a-bar Pub Entertainment

In about 1999 Labour enacted a new Health & Safety law.

Until then any pub could stage occasional enertainment with 1 or 2 entertainers with no paperwork whatsoever, under the "2 in a bar" rule.

Many pubs used this for folk singers or kareoke. Some had aspiring stand up comics. Some had talent nights. A few even had one stripper once or twice a week. For many pubs this was an essential lifeline when finances were tight. It was easy, there were no complex forms or assessments, no licencing hearings, fees or delays.

Then Labour introduced compulsory Health & Safety assessments, even for one stand up comic appearing for an hour twice a year. The cost of expert assesments could easy be the cost of a barman/woman's wages for a year. And that was without expensive H&S adaptations in case the perfectly ordinary pub suddenly became unsafe. Measures seen as appropriate for crowded pubs with off-West End theates upstairs and audiences of 100s packed into small spaces were applied equally to rural pubs with 10 customers and 3 exits.

Result? Overnight closure of many small struggling pubs including my favourite, The Fort.

This is H&S overkill. And anyone who says won't it being back strippers, I say they were in most towns until then, and had been for at least 20 years, on an occasional discreet basis. By all means have licencing for all-day 7-day-a-week establishments that don't do anything else, but this ban closed struggling community pubs. It destroyed a financial safety valve, diversity, and directly lead to concentration of all-day 7-day-a-week establishments specialising in pole dancers because only the big operators could afford the operating costs. And that concentration is not a good thing for custoers, neighbours or dancers.

Why is this idea important?

In about 1999 Labour enacted a new Health & Safety law.

Until then any pub could stage occasional enertainment with 1 or 2 entertainers with no paperwork whatsoever, under the "2 in a bar" rule.

Many pubs used this for folk singers or kareoke. Some had aspiring stand up comics. Some had talent nights. A few even had one stripper once or twice a week. For many pubs this was an essential lifeline when finances were tight. It was easy, there were no complex forms or assessments, no licencing hearings, fees or delays.

Then Labour introduced compulsory Health & Safety assessments, even for one stand up comic appearing for an hour twice a year. The cost of expert assesments could easy be the cost of a barman/woman's wages for a year. And that was without expensive H&S adaptations in case the perfectly ordinary pub suddenly became unsafe. Measures seen as appropriate for crowded pubs with off-West End theates upstairs and audiences of 100s packed into small spaces were applied equally to rural pubs with 10 customers and 3 exits.

Result? Overnight closure of many small struggling pubs including my favourite, The Fort.

This is H&S overkill. And anyone who says won't it being back strippers, I say they were in most towns until then, and had been for at least 20 years, on an occasional discreet basis. By all means have licencing for all-day 7-day-a-week establishments that don't do anything else, but this ban closed struggling community pubs. It destroyed a financial safety valve, diversity, and directly lead to concentration of all-day 7-day-a-week establishments specialising in pole dancers because only the big operators could afford the operating costs. And that concentration is not a good thing for custoers, neighbours or dancers.

Smoking Ban

i for one feel that the smoking ban has damaged the pub industry aswell as other companies. But most of all i think that people should have a choice on whether they are to smoke in public places, fair enough i know some people dislike the idea of smoking and think it is a horrible habit, but its all a matter of the persona of the individual.

 

So there for i suggest that the government does the best for both smokers and non-smokers, by introducing a  Smoking Licence for Companies that wish for people to be able to smoke on there land if they want to. But with the icence it must come with a sign to be put up saying that it is a smoking property (Companies only) and people can then choose whether they would like to go in or not

Why is this idea important?

i for one feel that the smoking ban has damaged the pub industry aswell as other companies. But most of all i think that people should have a choice on whether they are to smoke in public places, fair enough i know some people dislike the idea of smoking and think it is a horrible habit, but its all a matter of the persona of the individual.

 

So there for i suggest that the government does the best for both smokers and non-smokers, by introducing a  Smoking Licence for Companies that wish for people to be able to smoke on there land if they want to. But with the icence it must come with a sign to be put up saying that it is a smoking property (Companies only) and people can then choose whether they would like to go in or not