de criminisation of drugs

Cut costs of policing, reduce crime & reduce demand on the NHS, by legalising all currently illegal drugs. To achieve this, a fully resourced and comprehensive education programme would be needed targeting all sections of the uk community. This education would need to graphically illustrate the effects and consequences of taking drugs. Alongside this there would need to be a network of drop in centres where addicts could purchase pharmecutical grade drugs and sterile equipment at a minimal cost. (prehaps the prescription charge?)

Why is this idea important?

Cut costs of policing, reduce crime & reduce demand on the NHS, by legalising all currently illegal drugs. To achieve this, a fully resourced and comprehensive education programme would be needed targeting all sections of the uk community. This education would need to graphically illustrate the effects and consequences of taking drugs. Alongside this there would need to be a network of drop in centres where addicts could purchase pharmecutical grade drugs and sterile equipment at a minimal cost. (prehaps the prescription charge?)

stop drugs ruining our children’s lives

The war on drugs is a constant losing battle.  At 16, I would say around a third of my peers had at least tried cannabis, and probably a fifth was using it regularly.  By 18 MDMA and ecstacy was the drug of choice, until the government put restrictions on the chemicals required for making it, slowing (but not stopping) the flow of party drugs.  But rather than do anything to reduce the impact on public health or crime it produced two further problems – people who will bulk out what they can get hold of with much more dangerous, often bathroom chemicals and "designer drugs".

The government wants to reduce crime, and reduce numbers in prison.  Much of the petty crime committed is to fund drugs, people get hooked and their only concern is feeding their addiction.  I think the government should remove all prison time for personal possession, replacing it with enforced drug treatment programs for stronger drugs. There should be a legally binding statement specifying what amounts class as possession with intent to supply and all sentences for supply increased.

The legalisation of safer alternatives should come into public vote.  It is clear that prohibition is doing very little to curb drug use – They make MDMA harder to get, so people seek alternatives.  Banning a drug takes months, by the time it goes through there will be a new one to worry about. Mephedrone got banned, they are now worried about naphyrone.  There is 60 years research into the effects of MDMA, and pretty much nothing on these designer drugs.
 In fact most drug deaths from the classic drugs such as cocaine can be attributed to either purity problems or underlying health problems.  Prohibition is pushing drug culture towards drugs we no very little about.

In February 2009, the government was accused by Professor Nutt of making a political decision with regard to drug classification in rejecting the scientific advice to downgrade ecstasy from a class A drug. The Advisory Council for the MIsuse of Drugs report on ecstasy, based on a 12-month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it is not as dangerous as other class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and should be downgraded to class B. The advice was not followed.

The government should listen to independant advisory boards and should they disagree with a decision the only grounds of appeal should be though a third independant board.  What is the point of having an independant party involved if the government can simply choose to ignore it if they don't agree?

The cultivation of cannabis should be legalised for small scale production upon purchase of a yearly licence.  The revenue produced from this can go on the drug treatment programs to reduce the impact of harder drugs. 

Why is this idea important?

The war on drugs is a constant losing battle.  At 16, I would say around a third of my peers had at least tried cannabis, and probably a fifth was using it regularly.  By 18 MDMA and ecstacy was the drug of choice, until the government put restrictions on the chemicals required for making it, slowing (but not stopping) the flow of party drugs.  But rather than do anything to reduce the impact on public health or crime it produced two further problems – people who will bulk out what they can get hold of with much more dangerous, often bathroom chemicals and "designer drugs".

The government wants to reduce crime, and reduce numbers in prison.  Much of the petty crime committed is to fund drugs, people get hooked and their only concern is feeding their addiction.  I think the government should remove all prison time for personal possession, replacing it with enforced drug treatment programs for stronger drugs. There should be a legally binding statement specifying what amounts class as possession with intent to supply and all sentences for supply increased.

The legalisation of safer alternatives should come into public vote.  It is clear that prohibition is doing very little to curb drug use – They make MDMA harder to get, so people seek alternatives.  Banning a drug takes months, by the time it goes through there will be a new one to worry about. Mephedrone got banned, they are now worried about naphyrone.  There is 60 years research into the effects of MDMA, and pretty much nothing on these designer drugs.
 In fact most drug deaths from the classic drugs such as cocaine can be attributed to either purity problems or underlying health problems.  Prohibition is pushing drug culture towards drugs we no very little about.

In February 2009, the government was accused by Professor Nutt of making a political decision with regard to drug classification in rejecting the scientific advice to downgrade ecstasy from a class A drug. The Advisory Council for the MIsuse of Drugs report on ecstasy, based on a 12-month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it is not as dangerous as other class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and should be downgraded to class B. The advice was not followed.

The government should listen to independant advisory boards and should they disagree with a decision the only grounds of appeal should be though a third independant board.  What is the point of having an independant party involved if the government can simply choose to ignore it if they don't agree?

The cultivation of cannabis should be legalised for small scale production upon purchase of a yearly licence.  The revenue produced from this can go on the drug treatment programs to reduce the impact of harder drugs. 

THE LOST BILLIONS IN BENEFIT ALONE

To the RT Honourable Prime and Deputy Prime minister,

I as a man who has suffered over the last 18 years,including 4 of my children being physically abused by their mother, begining in 1992, and one of my sons passing away in 1998 i found myself using cannabis as a metaphoric crutch,the night after i burried our son,i experienced what one could only refer to as a vision,in which was made clear to me was, a way to retail prohibited substances,leaving nearly all the current laws in place to stop abuse of the act by penalizeing offenders for breach of growers licsenses,both home or commercial,and control the huge amount of revenue being laundered into the ilegall market.to test this we enlisted the help of the chamber of commerce,and set about testin what we believe…….

I have vast knowledge of the illegal(Prohibited) drug industry and a natural understanding of the Misuse of Drugs act and have waited to put our Business Plan into effect, and to come to fruition…

The end of the ilegall drug trade and the deprevation it brings to those that cant afford the prohibited price,and end the lavish lifestyle those that trade that commodity live,without contributing to the ecconomy legitamately!!!

The list of products that can be manafactured using this raw product IS ENDLESS,it produces more cellulose per acre than trees,it makes better oil than crude,better paper than trees,finer paints,materials of various grades,and most importantly INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES WERE DESIGNED TO RUN ON IT,BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PRODUCE TOXIC EMMISIONS WHEN USED AS FUEL!! as Otto intended when he created the 4 stroke engine. 

Why is this idea important?

To the RT Honourable Prime and Deputy Prime minister,

I as a man who has suffered over the last 18 years,including 4 of my children being physically abused by their mother, begining in 1992, and one of my sons passing away in 1998 i found myself using cannabis as a metaphoric crutch,the night after i burried our son,i experienced what one could only refer to as a vision,in which was made clear to me was, a way to retail prohibited substances,leaving nearly all the current laws in place to stop abuse of the act by penalizeing offenders for breach of growers licsenses,both home or commercial,and control the huge amount of revenue being laundered into the ilegall market.to test this we enlisted the help of the chamber of commerce,and set about testin what we believe…….

I have vast knowledge of the illegal(Prohibited) drug industry and a natural understanding of the Misuse of Drugs act and have waited to put our Business Plan into effect, and to come to fruition…

The end of the ilegall drug trade and the deprevation it brings to those that cant afford the prohibited price,and end the lavish lifestyle those that trade that commodity live,without contributing to the ecconomy legitamately!!!

The list of products that can be manafactured using this raw product IS ENDLESS,it produces more cellulose per acre than trees,it makes better oil than crude,better paper than trees,finer paints,materials of various grades,and most importantly INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES WERE DESIGNED TO RUN ON IT,BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PRODUCE TOXIC EMMISIONS WHEN USED AS FUEL!! as Otto intended when he created the 4 stroke engine. 

Legalise Drugs for drug addicts

Let me begin by saying I do not advocate drug use and don't take drugs.I am in my mid 50's.

There are those who are predisposed to taking drugs and others in society who will have nothing to do with them and this will always be the case.Those who are addicted will obtain drugs at almost any cost.

The money from drug trafficking rots society from within. the sums are so vast that normally incorruptible people become corrupted whether they be police, judiciary, customs officers, prison officers. Ask yourself, how do drugs get into the country? into prisons? Why do police drug busts that we see on TV always yield such small amounts. It's because they are mainly chasing down users and many users are also small dealers. The main dealers do not live on sink estates.

Drug dealing is so profitable that entire countries got/are involved in the trade. Hong Kong was built on the Opium trade thanks to Britain, a subject we don't talk about..

My idea is that existing addicts are confirmed as such by their GP's who take blood and urine samples at the same time. The user is is given a script for a government run dispensary in their area from which they receive their daily or weekly supply.

Benefits

You remove the bribery and corruption element.

You get a handle on the health of addicts – aids, hepatitus amongst other infections

Reduce housebreakings, shoplifting, assaults and prostitution amongst the young

Reduce accidental overdoses

Reduce the prison population

Reduce the size of the police force

No incentive for dealers to give freebies at the school gates, In fact no incentive to deal at all.

Decriminalise the young and give them a chance of getting their life back

Why is this idea important?

Let me begin by saying I do not advocate drug use and don't take drugs.I am in my mid 50's.

There are those who are predisposed to taking drugs and others in society who will have nothing to do with them and this will always be the case.Those who are addicted will obtain drugs at almost any cost.

The money from drug trafficking rots society from within. the sums are so vast that normally incorruptible people become corrupted whether they be police, judiciary, customs officers, prison officers. Ask yourself, how do drugs get into the country? into prisons? Why do police drug busts that we see on TV always yield such small amounts. It's because they are mainly chasing down users and many users are also small dealers. The main dealers do not live on sink estates.

Drug dealing is so profitable that entire countries got/are involved in the trade. Hong Kong was built on the Opium trade thanks to Britain, a subject we don't talk about..

My idea is that existing addicts are confirmed as such by their GP's who take blood and urine samples at the same time. The user is is given a script for a government run dispensary in their area from which they receive their daily or weekly supply.

Benefits

You remove the bribery and corruption element.

You get a handle on the health of addicts – aids, hepatitus amongst other infections

Reduce housebreakings, shoplifting, assaults and prostitution amongst the young

Reduce accidental overdoses

Reduce the prison population

Reduce the size of the police force

No incentive for dealers to give freebies at the school gates, In fact no incentive to deal at all.

Decriminalise the young and give them a chance of getting their life back

Make drugs legal to own and produce but illegal to trade

There are many ideas on here relating to drug prohibition, what im suggested may be looked at by many as simply a repeat but I feel it is something new.

 

I do not believe drugs are the problem in society, its the trade itself and the crime it funds.

My proposal is to make personal consumption of drugs legal but the trade illegal, maybe with even more severe punishments than currently exist. For example, if a guy is caught on the street corner with a variety of drugs in large quantities (clearly a dealer) then he gets put inside for a long time. On the other hand if John Smith is found to have four cannabis plants in his garden and caught having a smoke, he is well within his rights. I feel the same should apply to all drugs in this sense, people can grow their own mushrooms, if they want opium let them grow their own poppies and do so.

It may be a harder system to put in place, which is why i feel more severe punishments should be used for dealers, importers, and people who profit form the drug trade. Police drug crime units would still exist and get the satisfaction of busting Cocaine wharehouses, drug cartels wouldnt be getting their money, but the citizens of Britain who wish to have the freedom they deserve can do what they please as an individual

Why is this idea important?

There are many ideas on here relating to drug prohibition, what im suggested may be looked at by many as simply a repeat but I feel it is something new.

 

I do not believe drugs are the problem in society, its the trade itself and the crime it funds.

My proposal is to make personal consumption of drugs legal but the trade illegal, maybe with even more severe punishments than currently exist. For example, if a guy is caught on the street corner with a variety of drugs in large quantities (clearly a dealer) then he gets put inside for a long time. On the other hand if John Smith is found to have four cannabis plants in his garden and caught having a smoke, he is well within his rights. I feel the same should apply to all drugs in this sense, people can grow their own mushrooms, if they want opium let them grow their own poppies and do so.

It may be a harder system to put in place, which is why i feel more severe punishments should be used for dealers, importers, and people who profit form the drug trade. Police drug crime units would still exist and get the satisfaction of busting Cocaine wharehouses, drug cartels wouldnt be getting their money, but the citizens of Britain who wish to have the freedom they deserve can do what they please as an individual

Legalise all drugs – make them taxable.

Save lots and lots of money by legalising drugs. Take out the crime, the naughtiness, the "glamour" associated with illegal drug use by making users buy them at Boots along with their suntan lotion and toothpaste. 

Why is this idea important?

Save lots and lots of money by legalising drugs. Take out the crime, the naughtiness, the "glamour" associated with illegal drug use by making users buy them at Boots along with their suntan lotion and toothpaste. 

Legalise all drugs or, at the very least, cannabis.

I believe, for the reasons set out below, that all drugs should be freely available to those who want them, even drugs such as heroin and crystal meth which are capable of causing immense damage to the user. However, I am willing to accept that not only is the legalisation of such drugs well nigh impossible under the current political climate, but that there are numerous valid arguments against such a step. However, there is one drug which these arguments simply do not apply to: cannabis.

Let us compare cannabis to alcohol. This comparison is a cliche I know, but one worth repeating because it seems to have made no impression even on many of those who accept it as such. Alcohol is highly addictive, causes long term and short term liver damage and is very easy to overdose on. Cannabis, by contrast, is not physically addictive (of course it can be psychologically addictive, but so can chocolate fingers and football) and it is literally impossible to overdose on as the lethal dose is so high. Of course it can, in large quantities over a number of years, cause lung cancer and paranoia, and worsen psychosis in those predisposed to it.

However, lest we consider that legalisation would cause a sudden upsurge in use, bringing a wave of paranoid cancerous psychotics in its wake, let us not forget that cannabis use is lower among the Dutch than among the British or Americans. This is because cannabis is a highly cultural drug – that is to say, a substantial proportion of young adults, of which I am one, choose to use it, and a substantial proportion choose not to. This is, as I say, a matter of choice. You would be hard pressed to find any young adult in the UK, apart from those living in remote areas, who wishes to use cannabis and is unable to. If you want cannabis in the UK, you can get it, and it has ever been thus.

All of the above may go some way towards persuading those of a 'nannying' bent that not only are we the People safe to be let loose with cannabis, we are also able to get hold of it anyway so all legalisation would do is cut off a source of funding for criminals. Now, however, we must consider the more important and generalised importance of drug legalisation, for as they stand, the drug laws are contemptuous of the individual's right to choose what she may do, harmful or no, to her own body.

Why is this idea important?

I believe, for the reasons set out below, that all drugs should be freely available to those who want them, even drugs such as heroin and crystal meth which are capable of causing immense damage to the user. However, I am willing to accept that not only is the legalisation of such drugs well nigh impossible under the current political climate, but that there are numerous valid arguments against such a step. However, there is one drug which these arguments simply do not apply to: cannabis.

Let us compare cannabis to alcohol. This comparison is a cliche I know, but one worth repeating because it seems to have made no impression even on many of those who accept it as such. Alcohol is highly addictive, causes long term and short term liver damage and is very easy to overdose on. Cannabis, by contrast, is not physically addictive (of course it can be psychologically addictive, but so can chocolate fingers and football) and it is literally impossible to overdose on as the lethal dose is so high. Of course it can, in large quantities over a number of years, cause lung cancer and paranoia, and worsen psychosis in those predisposed to it.

However, lest we consider that legalisation would cause a sudden upsurge in use, bringing a wave of paranoid cancerous psychotics in its wake, let us not forget that cannabis use is lower among the Dutch than among the British or Americans. This is because cannabis is a highly cultural drug – that is to say, a substantial proportion of young adults, of which I am one, choose to use it, and a substantial proportion choose not to. This is, as I say, a matter of choice. You would be hard pressed to find any young adult in the UK, apart from those living in remote areas, who wishes to use cannabis and is unable to. If you want cannabis in the UK, you can get it, and it has ever been thus.

All of the above may go some way towards persuading those of a 'nannying' bent that not only are we the People safe to be let loose with cannabis, we are also able to get hold of it anyway so all legalisation would do is cut off a source of funding for criminals. Now, however, we must consider the more important and generalised importance of drug legalisation, for as they stand, the drug laws are contemptuous of the individual's right to choose what she may do, harmful or no, to her own body.

herbal highs

I have a shop in Newcastle upon Tyne city centre that sells "herbal highs" and i feel that instead of banning them they should welcome them. When I first opened four years ago i had a range of party pills which contained the now banned substance BZB or piperazines. There were no reported deaths or indeed bad side affects attributed to these products. In fact after the research I did on them I would have happily preffered my own children to experiment with them rather than take the risk of trying street drugs which are cut with some really nasty things such as ketamine and heroin. A lot of kids want to experiment with drugs at some point and these herbal highs were a safer alternative for them if they felt they had to take anything. BANNING THINGS OUTRIGHT DOES NOT MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!! At least when they were being sold in the shops my staff would not sell them to youngsters under the age of 18 and even if they did find their way to underage kids at least they were safe.  They were no where near as strong or dangerous as the latest batch of "herbals" which have recently had, and quite rightly,  bad press. What the government fails to see is that there is a huge demand for these products and not from your local "smackheads" or junkies but from respectable people from all walks of life, indeed the hard drug users who use street drugs are not interested in the herbals as they dont believe they are  as strong as the street versions. I have many customers who used the cannibanoids found in products such as the Spice incense blends to help them relax after a hard day at the office. I myself have used it to help me to sleep and I do not define myself as a drug user or a menace to society. Now that Spice etc is banned the only place I could find anything similar is to go walking the streets for a bone fide drug dealer and that is something I am not prepared to do…I am NOT a criminal. If the government had left the BZP party products alone they would not be in the mess they are in now. There is such a demand for recreational enhancers  that no matter what  they ban, there will ALWAYS be something new brought to the market. If the BZP's had been left alone no one would have ever heard of Methadrone or naphyrone, meow meow or woof woof. Every time a substance is banned the dealers on the streets know there is a demand and they can still get their hands on the substances and sell them for treble the price and the problem is back out on the streets where I do believe you don't want it!!!. Plant feeders were found in many herbal party pills that have been sold for over three years with no bad press or deaths associated to them. They were made and sold by reputable companies in safe doses, it was only when the pure product found its way onto the shelves that the dangers of high doses of the drug was realised. Now that Methadrone in ALL forms has been banned the government has basically opened the door for stronger and much more dangerous products which will no doubt be banned in the very near future and the cycle will continue. The government is making this a much more difficult problem that it should have ever been but they are so blind they cannot see it. Police it properly, tax it if necassary but please don't just ban things because you think the problems will go away. You are sending the people and their cash back onto the streets where you didnt want it in the first place, I am sorry but that is something I just cannot understand!! You are actually helping the illegal traffic of drugs!!!  Allow reputable dealers to sell the products, just like off lisences, if anyone is found selling to underage people then fine them, prosecute them and make them pay or close them down. Repeal the ban on BZP products and you will find that the demand for these new strong drugs will subside. Most people do not want extra strong substances that are dangerous and if they can find something that gives them the small lift they are looking for it will at least half the problems you are having now. The only people you are helping are the drug dealers on the street

Why is this idea important?

I have a shop in Newcastle upon Tyne city centre that sells "herbal highs" and i feel that instead of banning them they should welcome them. When I first opened four years ago i had a range of party pills which contained the now banned substance BZB or piperazines. There were no reported deaths or indeed bad side affects attributed to these products. In fact after the research I did on them I would have happily preffered my own children to experiment with them rather than take the risk of trying street drugs which are cut with some really nasty things such as ketamine and heroin. A lot of kids want to experiment with drugs at some point and these herbal highs were a safer alternative for them if they felt they had to take anything. BANNING THINGS OUTRIGHT DOES NOT MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!! At least when they were being sold in the shops my staff would not sell them to youngsters under the age of 18 and even if they did find their way to underage kids at least they were safe.  They were no where near as strong or dangerous as the latest batch of "herbals" which have recently had, and quite rightly,  bad press. What the government fails to see is that there is a huge demand for these products and not from your local "smackheads" or junkies but from respectable people from all walks of life, indeed the hard drug users who use street drugs are not interested in the herbals as they dont believe they are  as strong as the street versions. I have many customers who used the cannibanoids found in products such as the Spice incense blends to help them relax after a hard day at the office. I myself have used it to help me to sleep and I do not define myself as a drug user or a menace to society. Now that Spice etc is banned the only place I could find anything similar is to go walking the streets for a bone fide drug dealer and that is something I am not prepared to do…I am NOT a criminal. If the government had left the BZP party products alone they would not be in the mess they are in now. There is such a demand for recreational enhancers  that no matter what  they ban, there will ALWAYS be something new brought to the market. If the BZP's had been left alone no one would have ever heard of Methadrone or naphyrone, meow meow or woof woof. Every time a substance is banned the dealers on the streets know there is a demand and they can still get their hands on the substances and sell them for treble the price and the problem is back out on the streets where I do believe you don't want it!!!. Plant feeders were found in many herbal party pills that have been sold for over three years with no bad press or deaths associated to them. They were made and sold by reputable companies in safe doses, it was only when the pure product found its way onto the shelves that the dangers of high doses of the drug was realised. Now that Methadrone in ALL forms has been banned the government has basically opened the door for stronger and much more dangerous products which will no doubt be banned in the very near future and the cycle will continue. The government is making this a much more difficult problem that it should have ever been but they are so blind they cannot see it. Police it properly, tax it if necassary but please don't just ban things because you think the problems will go away. You are sending the people and their cash back onto the streets where you didnt want it in the first place, I am sorry but that is something I just cannot understand!! You are actually helping the illegal traffic of drugs!!!  Allow reputable dealers to sell the products, just like off lisences, if anyone is found selling to underage people then fine them, prosecute them and make them pay or close them down. Repeal the ban on BZP products and you will find that the demand for these new strong drugs will subside. Most people do not want extra strong substances that are dangerous and if they can find something that gives them the small lift they are looking for it will at least half the problems you are having now. The only people you are helping are the drug dealers on the street

Decrimalise drug use

The Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and Leader of Glasgow Council all admit  heavy duty class A drugs use in the past  without fear of prosecution while the majority of people in gaol are there due to their use of class A drugs, surely this is unfair and we should all be treated equally.

Why is this idea important?

The Prime Minister, the Mayor of London and Leader of Glasgow Council all admit  heavy duty class A drugs use in the past  without fear of prosecution while the majority of people in gaol are there due to their use of class A drugs, surely this is unfair and we should all be treated equally.

Legalisation of drugs

It is a fairly substantiated scientific claim that legalising drugs would be beneficial to the country for several reasons:

1) It takes the illegal trade in drugs out of the hands of criminal gangs and into the government

2) The govt makes plenty of money through the sale of tobacco and alcohol, both of which kill far more each year than all illegal drugs combined, why not make a bit of money from legalising the rest

3) Although some are extremely dangerous such as heroin and crack, most illegal drugs are much safer than alcohol. Cannabis is 'healthier' than tobacco and hallucinogenics are almost all completely harmless. Drugs are made illegal not on the basis of scientific fact as they should be, but on political bias.

4) Evidence of the political bias is on blatent show in the farce that was the banning of mephadrone and the resignation of professor Nutt along with various other members of the ACMD

5)Legalising the drugs that people take makes it far easier for them to seek and obtain medical help. It is far easier for someone to get help overcoming addiction if the drug they are addicted to is not illegal to obtain or possess.

6) Portugal is a case study where the possession of most drugs has been legalised and it has witnessed a decline in the number of deaths each year from drugs

I all this not as someone who takes drugs nor wants to in the future and in a perfect world there would be no drugs nor a market for them. However this is not a perfect world and so the correct methods must be used to solve the problem, not subpar methods used because the public perceives them as right. Education, not criminalisation, is way to achieve this and education can only come after decriminalisation of drugs.

Why is this idea important?

It is a fairly substantiated scientific claim that legalising drugs would be beneficial to the country for several reasons:

1) It takes the illegal trade in drugs out of the hands of criminal gangs and into the government

2) The govt makes plenty of money through the sale of tobacco and alcohol, both of which kill far more each year than all illegal drugs combined, why not make a bit of money from legalising the rest

3) Although some are extremely dangerous such as heroin and crack, most illegal drugs are much safer than alcohol. Cannabis is 'healthier' than tobacco and hallucinogenics are almost all completely harmless. Drugs are made illegal not on the basis of scientific fact as they should be, but on political bias.

4) Evidence of the political bias is on blatent show in the farce that was the banning of mephadrone and the resignation of professor Nutt along with various other members of the ACMD

5)Legalising the drugs that people take makes it far easier for them to seek and obtain medical help. It is far easier for someone to get help overcoming addiction if the drug they are addicted to is not illegal to obtain or possess.

6) Portugal is a case study where the possession of most drugs has been legalised and it has witnessed a decline in the number of deaths each year from drugs

I all this not as someone who takes drugs nor wants to in the future and in a perfect world there would be no drugs nor a market for them. However this is not a perfect world and so the correct methods must be used to solve the problem, not subpar methods used because the public perceives them as right. Education, not criminalisation, is way to achieve this and education can only come after decriminalisation of drugs.

LEGALIZE NATURAL PSYCHEDELICS ALREADY!!

Psychedelic and Entheogens should be legalized, since they who do not have the right to experiment with their own consciousness, are being stripped away of their rights at the most basic essential level.

Psychedelics (meaning "mind manifesting), and Entheogens (meaning "invoking the God within")

Psychedelics and Entheogens are referring only to natural substances that are found in nature, UNLIKE man-made artificially synthesized chemicals such Cocaine, Meth, Alcohol, etc.

Psychedelics to be legalized (to name a few): LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, Ibogaine

Why is this idea important?

Psychedelic and Entheogens should be legalized, since they who do not have the right to experiment with their own consciousness, are being stripped away of their rights at the most basic essential level.

Psychedelics (meaning "mind manifesting), and Entheogens (meaning "invoking the God within")

Psychedelics and Entheogens are referring only to natural substances that are found in nature, UNLIKE man-made artificially synthesized chemicals such Cocaine, Meth, Alcohol, etc.

Psychedelics to be legalized (to name a few): LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, Ibogaine

Penalise commercial cannabis and tolerate personal use

As a result of prohibition, cannabis is being utilized by a number of dangerous gangs as an easy source of income. Often used by Asian gangs (with links to human trafficking, prostitution, money-laundering and counterfeit goods), houses are completely stripped and used to cultivate bad quality cannabis, which is often sprayed with dangerous weight adding adulterants, whilst putting money into the pockets of dangerous criminals. Full legalisation of cannabis is not permitted by European law and therefore is not an option. However, prisons, personal lives and the economy could be greatly enhanced by tolerating the cultivation of a small number of plants (e.g. no more than 3 female plants, similar to the law in Spain), and decriminalising possession of no more than 1 ounce of cannabis. Meanwhile, commercial, large scale grow operations should be treated as a serious offence to drive these dangerous gangs out of the UK, and stop their bad quality and often dangerous products appearing on the market.

'Grit-weed' is the colloquial term for cannabis that has been adulterated by weight adding substances that can range from glass shards, to invisible, oil like substances that pour out disgusting, thick black smoke when lit. This is a result of greedy drug dealers and gangs who are only interested in profit with no concern for consumer health, and yet for some people, the only option is to be exposed to this type of cannabis because they fear the repercussions of growing a few plants for personal use. By removing the legal risk involved in growing a few personal plants, not only will people have access to a clean product, but it will also take a large amount of money from the pockets of greedy criminals.

Why is this idea important?

As a result of prohibition, cannabis is being utilized by a number of dangerous gangs as an easy source of income. Often used by Asian gangs (with links to human trafficking, prostitution, money-laundering and counterfeit goods), houses are completely stripped and used to cultivate bad quality cannabis, which is often sprayed with dangerous weight adding adulterants, whilst putting money into the pockets of dangerous criminals. Full legalisation of cannabis is not permitted by European law and therefore is not an option. However, prisons, personal lives and the economy could be greatly enhanced by tolerating the cultivation of a small number of plants (e.g. no more than 3 female plants, similar to the law in Spain), and decriminalising possession of no more than 1 ounce of cannabis. Meanwhile, commercial, large scale grow operations should be treated as a serious offence to drive these dangerous gangs out of the UK, and stop their bad quality and often dangerous products appearing on the market.

'Grit-weed' is the colloquial term for cannabis that has been adulterated by weight adding substances that can range from glass shards, to invisible, oil like substances that pour out disgusting, thick black smoke when lit. This is a result of greedy drug dealers and gangs who are only interested in profit with no concern for consumer health, and yet for some people, the only option is to be exposed to this type of cannabis because they fear the repercussions of growing a few plants for personal use. By removing the legal risk involved in growing a few personal plants, not only will people have access to a clean product, but it will also take a large amount of money from the pockets of greedy criminals.

“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous… ” – Dr. Carl Sagan

My idea is simple: Legalise, tax and regulate Cannabis.

————–

Cannabis should be available to everyone aged 18+

————–

Commercially:-

Cannabis should be sold in a licensed premises along the lines of a tobacconists, supplied by a licensed commercial grower and all products quality controlled before being supplied to the store. All sales could be taxed – a much needed source of income in these bad economical times.

Cannabis must be used in a private place such as a home, or a public place similar to the Coffee Shops of Amsterdam. 

It would be an offence to consume Cannabis in an un-appointed public area.

It would be a criminal offence to sell Cannabis, or buy Cannabis for, anybody under the age of 18, much like the Alcohol laws.

————–

Personally:-

Growing for personal use would not need a licence. There would be a pre-determined maximum number of plants per person aged 18+ per household. Any Cannabis grown for personal use may be freely used with friends, family or anybody aged 18+.

It would be a criminal offence to sell off any Cannabis grown for personal use.

It would be a criminal offence to supply anybody under the age of 18 with any Cannabis.

————–

Medically:-

A doctor would be able to prescribe Cannabis to anybody they believe it would benefit, with no age limit.

Strains of Cannabis bred to be medically potent will be available in all Chemists on prescription. For patients who prefer not to smoke Cannabis, vapourisers and Cannabis Recipe books would be available at a low price at the Chemists to provide alternative methods of consumption.

————–

Industrial Cannabis:-

Cannabis has many industrial uses: It's oils can be used as biofuel, it's fibre – the strongest natural fibre known to man – is a renewable source of paper, it's seeds can be used for food. Make use of Cannabis's many varying properties!

————–

Why is this idea important?

My idea is simple: Legalise, tax and regulate Cannabis.

————–

Cannabis should be available to everyone aged 18+

————–

Commercially:-

Cannabis should be sold in a licensed premises along the lines of a tobacconists, supplied by a licensed commercial grower and all products quality controlled before being supplied to the store. All sales could be taxed – a much needed source of income in these bad economical times.

Cannabis must be used in a private place such as a home, or a public place similar to the Coffee Shops of Amsterdam. 

It would be an offence to consume Cannabis in an un-appointed public area.

It would be a criminal offence to sell Cannabis, or buy Cannabis for, anybody under the age of 18, much like the Alcohol laws.

————–

Personally:-

Growing for personal use would not need a licence. There would be a pre-determined maximum number of plants per person aged 18+ per household. Any Cannabis grown for personal use may be freely used with friends, family or anybody aged 18+.

It would be a criminal offence to sell off any Cannabis grown for personal use.

It would be a criminal offence to supply anybody under the age of 18 with any Cannabis.

————–

Medically:-

A doctor would be able to prescribe Cannabis to anybody they believe it would benefit, with no age limit.

Strains of Cannabis bred to be medically potent will be available in all Chemists on prescription. For patients who prefer not to smoke Cannabis, vapourisers and Cannabis Recipe books would be available at a low price at the Chemists to provide alternative methods of consumption.

————–

Industrial Cannabis:-

Cannabis has many industrial uses: It's oils can be used as biofuel, it's fibre – the strongest natural fibre known to man – is a renewable source of paper, it's seeds can be used for food. Make use of Cannabis's many varying properties!

————–

Redefine the war on drugs.

The problem with many societies is that they sometimes fail to learn from the past. This is what is happening with the war on drugs. It is a decades long campaign that can never be won, at least not through any traditional method.

The law is what makes criminals. This isn't just a musing, it is literal. Because the law is shifting regularly, an innocent person can be MADE guilty. Prohibition of alcohol is what created gangsters like Al Capone and yet government seems to see no causality between prohibition and the insurgency pf people who find ways to capitalise on this prohibition. Law does not stop people acquiring and selling drugs, it just makes it harder, and makes its economic infrastructure more underground and thus more violent.

Some comodities are always in demand, drugs are an example of this and the mistake the governent makes is that they think its a real war, like the drugs and the dealers can all be killed, when these complex networks of drugs traders are more deeply buried into society than any terrorist network. Drugs trafficking bears more similarities to a business than a politically driven or idealogically driven terrorist cell.

Drug traffickers are a twisted hybrid of terrorist and business man, where terrorism and violence is company regulation. The only way for the government to fight this infectious threat is to redefine its war and this war is simple economy people! The governent undercuts the rival (the black market). You legitamize it, create recreational instutions where people can take drugs in an environment that is safe from the violence and criminaity of the underground it was once banished to.

Addicts need to be treated as "P.O.W"s rather than soldiers, customers rather than company workers. When you undercut the business man, and offer better services than him, he loses business.

Possible caveats: If it is legal what stops everyone from taking drugs?

Well, cigarettes and alcohol are legal but not everybody uses them. Sometimes people just don't like their experience on drugs and don't do them again. We should be looking at educating people on using them but not allowing it to consume them, unfortunately, in the "shadows of society" (to borrow a Cleggism), they go without guidance and drugs become all they know, resorting to crime to get it.

Why is this idea important?

The problem with many societies is that they sometimes fail to learn from the past. This is what is happening with the war on drugs. It is a decades long campaign that can never be won, at least not through any traditional method.

The law is what makes criminals. This isn't just a musing, it is literal. Because the law is shifting regularly, an innocent person can be MADE guilty. Prohibition of alcohol is what created gangsters like Al Capone and yet government seems to see no causality between prohibition and the insurgency pf people who find ways to capitalise on this prohibition. Law does not stop people acquiring and selling drugs, it just makes it harder, and makes its economic infrastructure more underground and thus more violent.

Some comodities are always in demand, drugs are an example of this and the mistake the governent makes is that they think its a real war, like the drugs and the dealers can all be killed, when these complex networks of drugs traders are more deeply buried into society than any terrorist network. Drugs trafficking bears more similarities to a business than a politically driven or idealogically driven terrorist cell.

Drug traffickers are a twisted hybrid of terrorist and business man, where terrorism and violence is company regulation. The only way for the government to fight this infectious threat is to redefine its war and this war is simple economy people! The governent undercuts the rival (the black market). You legitamize it, create recreational instutions where people can take drugs in an environment that is safe from the violence and criminaity of the underground it was once banished to.

Addicts need to be treated as "P.O.W"s rather than soldiers, customers rather than company workers. When you undercut the business man, and offer better services than him, he loses business.

Possible caveats: If it is legal what stops everyone from taking drugs?

Well, cigarettes and alcohol are legal but not everybody uses them. Sometimes people just don't like their experience on drugs and don't do them again. We should be looking at educating people on using them but not allowing it to consume them, unfortunately, in the "shadows of society" (to borrow a Cleggism), they go without guidance and drugs become all they know, resorting to crime to get it.

Coffee Shops

There may have been a time when the criminilisation of marajuana made sense- I don't know, I wasn't there. At present its continued status as a class B illicit substance is silly. Prohibition makes gangsters rich, this has been true since the bootleggers of the 1920s grew rich and powerful from the actions of an unworkable temperance movement. Admitedly said gangsters did use their new found wealth and power to bequeth the US one of it's most progressive and inspiring presidents in JFK, but that's not really the point. It shouldn't have to happen that way.

There remain problems with legalizing cannabis, of which any government who has tried is all to aware. It will inevitably remain a controlled substance, we aren't living in paradise, we're living in the real world. However, we have a tailor made solution to our current impasse from our friends from across the hook. The Dutch coffee shop model is ripe for introduction into the UK. It works well there, seems to have little bearing on crime, and has become, as far as I can make out entirely normal. Here are but a few advantages to the coffee shop model:

Coffee shop boosts tourism bringing revenue into the UK.

Coffee shops are a good form of urban regeneration filling empty space in towns and cities and offering private sector employment at a time when it is much needed.

Coffee shops remove the gateway element of cannabis to gang culture.

Coffee shops are taxable.

Coffee shops might encourage a move way from our more harmful binge drinking culture, at least for some.

Advances in growing technology mean that the best cannabis, as in Holland, can be grown in the UK. Less sterling would flow out of the UK if we could sanction grow rooms as part of a coffee shop.

Coffee shops will not be to everyone's liking but I'd sure like to run one. Mine would be a cannabis and comedy lounge- putting on live shows and running film nights whilst people could get high. To be honest I feel my careers a bit in limbo until I'm alowed to do it. But as Howard Marx once told me: "You'll get there…"

Finally the other problem the smoking ban and the obvious problem that presents to coffee shops there are five possible solutions that I can conceive of:

1) The vaporizer lounge solution favoured in Canada where no tobacco is smoked and cannabis is vaporized in machines to create a smoke free way of getting high (much better for the lungs).

2) The extractor fan rooms favoured in some establishments in Holland. Smokers go into a seperate, sealed room, where they smoke and their smoke is sucked up by extractor fans in the ceiling.

3) Outside terraces, the conventional solution for pubs, nice in the summer, heaters and awning required for winter.

4) Ignore the ban. A lot of places in Amsterdam do. There are some sweet places in Amsterdam that have jars to collect money for potential fines for the establishment being caught permitting tobacco smoking. The idea is, you want to smoke tobacco, you put a couple of euros in the jar, if everybody does that and the establishment is eventually charged, the fine is covered.

5) Modify the legislation around the smoking ban, or just give coffee shops the same status as private smoking clubs and the bar in the house of commons, so that smoking is permitted by the reasonable consent of the customer. 

This is all very doable and I'd be willing to help make it happen.

Why is this idea important?

There may have been a time when the criminilisation of marajuana made sense- I don't know, I wasn't there. At present its continued status as a class B illicit substance is silly. Prohibition makes gangsters rich, this has been true since the bootleggers of the 1920s grew rich and powerful from the actions of an unworkable temperance movement. Admitedly said gangsters did use their new found wealth and power to bequeth the US one of it's most progressive and inspiring presidents in JFK, but that's not really the point. It shouldn't have to happen that way.

There remain problems with legalizing cannabis, of which any government who has tried is all to aware. It will inevitably remain a controlled substance, we aren't living in paradise, we're living in the real world. However, we have a tailor made solution to our current impasse from our friends from across the hook. The Dutch coffee shop model is ripe for introduction into the UK. It works well there, seems to have little bearing on crime, and has become, as far as I can make out entirely normal. Here are but a few advantages to the coffee shop model:

Coffee shop boosts tourism bringing revenue into the UK.

Coffee shops are a good form of urban regeneration filling empty space in towns and cities and offering private sector employment at a time when it is much needed.

Coffee shops remove the gateway element of cannabis to gang culture.

Coffee shops are taxable.

Coffee shops might encourage a move way from our more harmful binge drinking culture, at least for some.

Advances in growing technology mean that the best cannabis, as in Holland, can be grown in the UK. Less sterling would flow out of the UK if we could sanction grow rooms as part of a coffee shop.

Coffee shops will not be to everyone's liking but I'd sure like to run one. Mine would be a cannabis and comedy lounge- putting on live shows and running film nights whilst people could get high. To be honest I feel my careers a bit in limbo until I'm alowed to do it. But as Howard Marx once told me: "You'll get there…"

Finally the other problem the smoking ban and the obvious problem that presents to coffee shops there are five possible solutions that I can conceive of:

1) The vaporizer lounge solution favoured in Canada where no tobacco is smoked and cannabis is vaporized in machines to create a smoke free way of getting high (much better for the lungs).

2) The extractor fan rooms favoured in some establishments in Holland. Smokers go into a seperate, sealed room, where they smoke and their smoke is sucked up by extractor fans in the ceiling.

3) Outside terraces, the conventional solution for pubs, nice in the summer, heaters and awning required for winter.

4) Ignore the ban. A lot of places in Amsterdam do. There are some sweet places in Amsterdam that have jars to collect money for potential fines for the establishment being caught permitting tobacco smoking. The idea is, you want to smoke tobacco, you put a couple of euros in the jar, if everybody does that and the establishment is eventually charged, the fine is covered.

5) Modify the legislation around the smoking ban, or just give coffee shops the same status as private smoking clubs and the bar in the house of commons, so that smoking is permitted by the reasonable consent of the customer. 

This is all very doable and I'd be willing to help make it happen.

Legalize all Drug use.

This would hopefully reduce the influence of the Foul drug dealer filth.£50,000 a year to keep an addict in jail!?They commit a crime to pay for their Drugs.If the govt are supplying the drugs they can ensure constant supply at a vastly reduced cost,and they would also be saving Vast amounts in confinement costs.£50,000 a year!!!Multiply that a few thousand times!How much is the Total cost?? Rehabilitation does NOT happen in Jail in most cases.Dont just react to circumstances,prevent them in the first place,Use a bit of common sense,and Intelligence,Anticipate,Think ahead!

Why is this idea important?

This would hopefully reduce the influence of the Foul drug dealer filth.£50,000 a year to keep an addict in jail!?They commit a crime to pay for their Drugs.If the govt are supplying the drugs they can ensure constant supply at a vastly reduced cost,and they would also be saving Vast amounts in confinement costs.£50,000 a year!!!Multiply that a few thousand times!How much is the Total cost?? Rehabilitation does NOT happen in Jail in most cases.Dont just react to circumstances,prevent them in the first place,Use a bit of common sense,and Intelligence,Anticipate,Think ahead!

Legalise recreational drugs

All drugs should be regulated, taxed and carefully distributed by legal outlets to take them out of the hands of criminal gangs.

Generous provision for education, treament and reducing demand factors like poverty should be provided from the additional tax revenue.

Why is this idea important?

All drugs should be regulated, taxed and carefully distributed by legal outlets to take them out of the hands of criminal gangs.

Generous provision for education, treament and reducing demand factors like poverty should be provided from the additional tax revenue.

Repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act

It is time for a reasonable, sensible, and effective drugs policy.

We should repeal the misuse of drugs act, we should legalise and tax certain drugs, and control the distribution of other more harmful drugs in the context of harm reduction. We should move away from the farcical system of classification which is inherently anti-scientific and discredits the entire system in the eyes of the majority of people. We should take the drug trade out of the hands of terrorists, mafia, and other criminal elements.

Furthermore, we should begin a timetable for withdrawal from the UN Convention on Drugs. Contrary to popular opinion (which newspapers are only too keen to parrot), this would not lead to sanctions against the UK – it is perfectly possible within the scope of the UN Convention on Drugs. It would be necessary to discuss alternatives to the current system openly, and to create a new momentum for change worldwide. A country such as the UK openly questioning the effectiveness of the UNDPs operations would be symbolically very powerful and a catalyst for change in itself.

Why is this idea important?

It is time for a reasonable, sensible, and effective drugs policy.

We should repeal the misuse of drugs act, we should legalise and tax certain drugs, and control the distribution of other more harmful drugs in the context of harm reduction. We should move away from the farcical system of classification which is inherently anti-scientific and discredits the entire system in the eyes of the majority of people. We should take the drug trade out of the hands of terrorists, mafia, and other criminal elements.

Furthermore, we should begin a timetable for withdrawal from the UN Convention on Drugs. Contrary to popular opinion (which newspapers are only too keen to parrot), this would not lead to sanctions against the UK – it is perfectly possible within the scope of the UN Convention on Drugs. It would be necessary to discuss alternatives to the current system openly, and to create a new momentum for change worldwide. A country such as the UK openly questioning the effectiveness of the UNDPs operations would be symbolically very powerful and a catalyst for change in itself.

Repeal the Prohibition of Certain Drugs

My idea, in layman's terms is to legalise several Class B and C drugs, namely Cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy. Now I urge you, before you ignore this as "hippy trash", I am not a drug user, although living in a democratic country that should have no effect whatsoever on whether my opinion is considered or not.

Although, in someways I am, two of the most toxic and dangerous drugs available to humans, I can consume, legally, on a regular basis. I am speaking of course about Alcohol and Caffeine. However for the purpose of this arguement I will focus on Alcohol.

So let me give you two facts.

  • The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.
  • Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death.   This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

So why is it that alcohol is readily available almost anywhere, when the safer drug, is not?

I believe certain drugs, not all should be legalised. For the most part this is down to an individual's human rights at being able to put whatever they want into their bodies, whether it is good for them or not. The government should not stop this.

I do not believe all drugs should be legalised, and i think restrictions should be placed upon those which are sold. For example; the obvious restriction would be no one under the age of 18 being allowed to purchase them. But restrictions such as making it illegal to consume the drugs in a public place would allow people to enjoy drugs in their own homes, without affecting others.

 

I think Britain has a chance to lead the world with this idea,

Why is this idea important?

My idea, in layman's terms is to legalise several Class B and C drugs, namely Cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy. Now I urge you, before you ignore this as "hippy trash", I am not a drug user, although living in a democratic country that should have no effect whatsoever on whether my opinion is considered or not.

Although, in someways I am, two of the most toxic and dangerous drugs available to humans, I can consume, legally, on a regular basis. I am speaking of course about Alcohol and Caffeine. However for the purpose of this arguement I will focus on Alcohol.

So let me give you two facts.

  • The United Kingdom's Science and Technology Select Committee considers alcohol far more harmful than marijuana.
  • Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death.   This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

So why is it that alcohol is readily available almost anywhere, when the safer drug, is not?

I believe certain drugs, not all should be legalised. For the most part this is down to an individual's human rights at being able to put whatever they want into their bodies, whether it is good for them or not. The government should not stop this.

I do not believe all drugs should be legalised, and i think restrictions should be placed upon those which are sold. For example; the obvious restriction would be no one under the age of 18 being allowed to purchase them. But restrictions such as making it illegal to consume the drugs in a public place would allow people to enjoy drugs in their own homes, without affecting others.

 

I think Britain has a chance to lead the world with this idea,