Is our goverment commeted to the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms ?

This is what our goverment says

"The Government is committed not only to opening up the discussion on the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms, but to responding to and acting as appropriate on the ideas submitted through this site. Your ideas, comments and ratings will directly inform the Government’s policy making. Some of your proposals could even end up making it into bills before Parliament. We’ll consider your ideas on civil liberties for the proposed Freedom Bill later in 2010. We may also include ideas on unnecessary laws in a future bill."

If our goverment is commited to restoring our Freedoms, then this subject cannot be ignored.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1.  The MDA infringes upon our freedom, it conflicts with article 8 and 9 of the european covention on human rights and fundermental freedoms.

1b. Article 8 –

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Example

If we as responsible adults choose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purpose in the privicy of our own homes, we can under article 8 and 9 because its YOUR body and your PRIVATE life. But sadly not our goverment convicts and ruins peoples lifes with criminal records for this reason.

  • National security is not at all affected  
  • Public safety or the economic well-being of the country are also not affected
  • Cannbis use in ones home does not cause disorder or crime
  • 'For the protection of health or morals' – This is the one our goverment beileves it does affect
  •  'For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' not affected again

My point is if our goverment beilives it can break our freedom on the point of health and morals for the use of cannabis, then i want to see the scientific evidence to support their claim. I have done some research on the health risks and benifits of cannabis and the evidence suggest that cannabis is far less harmful and more benifcial than our goverment belive and want us to belive.

To convict medical cannabis users that suffer from Cancer, Aids, Glaucoma, Epilepsy, MS, ME and many more conditions that find relief in the natural cannabis plant, based on health and morals is wrong, how can u convict someone who finds deadly needed relief with little if any health risks from the cannabis. YOU carnt under the ECOHR

To convict for recreational use is also wrong as there is also little if any risk for most people in terms of harmful. Yes as evidence doest suggest cannabis may trigger scizophrenia in individuals, to say that it causes scizophrenia is totaly over exagerated as the scientific evidence doesnt support the cliam.

1c. Article 9 –

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

My point

A person has the funderment choich to become a Cantheist or believe in Hinduism, Christianity and more, but the diffrence is in the religion of Christianity wine(alcohol) is a sacrade substance as the blood of Jesus Christ and can be consumed in rituals, but if you choose to become a Cantheist then the sacrade substance would be cannabis. But under the current MDA 1971 you would be convited for that view.

Why is this idea important?

This is what our goverment says

"The Government is committed not only to opening up the discussion on the restoration of citizens’ fundamental freedoms, but to responding to and acting as appropriate on the ideas submitted through this site. Your ideas, comments and ratings will directly inform the Government’s policy making. Some of your proposals could even end up making it into bills before Parliament. We’ll consider your ideas on civil liberties for the proposed Freedom Bill later in 2010. We may also include ideas on unnecessary laws in a future bill."

If our goverment is commited to restoring our Freedoms, then this subject cannot be ignored.

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1.  The MDA infringes upon our freedom, it conflicts with article 8 and 9 of the european covention on human rights and fundermental freedoms.

1b. Article 8 –

  1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
  2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Example

If we as responsible adults choose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purpose in the privicy of our own homes, we can under article 8 and 9 because its YOUR body and your PRIVATE life. But sadly not our goverment convicts and ruins peoples lifes with criminal records for this reason.

  • National security is not at all affected  
  • Public safety or the economic well-being of the country are also not affected
  • Cannbis use in ones home does not cause disorder or crime
  • 'For the protection of health or morals' – This is the one our goverment beileves it does affect
  •  'For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others' not affected again

My point is if our goverment beilives it can break our freedom on the point of health and morals for the use of cannabis, then i want to see the scientific evidence to support their claim. I have done some research on the health risks and benifits of cannabis and the evidence suggest that cannabis is far less harmful and more benifcial than our goverment belive and want us to belive.

To convict medical cannabis users that suffer from Cancer, Aids, Glaucoma, Epilepsy, MS, ME and many more conditions that find relief in the natural cannabis plant, based on health and morals is wrong, how can u convict someone who finds deadly needed relief with little if any health risks from the cannabis. YOU carnt under the ECOHR

To convict for recreational use is also wrong as there is also little if any risk for most people in terms of harmful. Yes as evidence doest suggest cannabis may trigger scizophrenia in individuals, to say that it causes scizophrenia is totaly over exagerated as the scientific evidence doesnt support the cliam.

1c. Article 9 –

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
  2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

My point

A person has the funderment choich to become a Cantheist or believe in Hinduism, Christianity and more, but the diffrence is in the religion of Christianity wine(alcohol) is a sacrade substance as the blood of Jesus Christ and can be consumed in rituals, but if you choose to become a Cantheist then the sacrade substance would be cannabis. But under the current MDA 1971 you would be convited for that view.

Human Rights for All Citizens

Current legislation gives individuals rights which override the rights of other citizens.   The rules should be amended so that no one individual can claim a right where this would clearly affect the rights of others.    Jail inmates should loose such rights when imprisoned and illegal immigrants should have no rights until they have been accepted into our country.   This would reduce litigation that currently forces our country to accept none desirable people to the detriment of our own wishes.

We should also have the right to exclude people from within the EEC who are known criminals

Why is this idea important?

Current legislation gives individuals rights which override the rights of other citizens.   The rules should be amended so that no one individual can claim a right where this would clearly affect the rights of others.    Jail inmates should loose such rights when imprisoned and illegal immigrants should have no rights until they have been accepted into our country.   This would reduce litigation that currently forces our country to accept none desirable people to the detriment of our own wishes.

We should also have the right to exclude people from within the EEC who are known criminals

A Basic Civil Liberty And Right Is Not To Be Put On A Database.

The idea is not to be put on any database unless there is a special and compelling reason for it. Any database should be proposed and its exact purposes set out. Those purposes should be under review and possibility of being revoked if misused or subverted for other reasons.

A database should be a special and exceptional instrument with a definite and defined reason set out for its existence, access and use.

An example of a database subverted for unintended uses is that created for CBR checks and that created to carry the DNA records collected by the police. Thes databases now contain millions of names making them the biggest databases of their sort in the world. We must demand public control and sanction for them.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is not to be put on any database unless there is a special and compelling reason for it. Any database should be proposed and its exact purposes set out. Those purposes should be under review and possibility of being revoked if misused or subverted for other reasons.

A database should be a special and exceptional instrument with a definite and defined reason set out for its existence, access and use.

An example of a database subverted for unintended uses is that created for CBR checks and that created to carry the DNA records collected by the police. Thes databases now contain millions of names making them the biggest databases of their sort in the world. We must demand public control and sanction for them.

The legalisation of cannabis as a tradable commodity

In todays society is it really fair to legalise a plant that nearly every single person in the country has used? Im seventeen years old and tried my first spliff at 13. Every single person i know smokes it and its even easier to get than alcohol. Why? BECAUSE its illegal. Alcohol is so hard to get when young because a person who serves someone who is underage, can get a criminal sentence but they can still make a profit from selling alcohol to people legally allowed to consume it, therefore they are more likely to enforce the law themselves. Thats why the alcohol laws work. sort of.

Cannabis is by far one of the most softest drugs on the streets. Your childs baby food probably has more harmful chemicals in than cannabis. It can also be used for medical purposes and hemp can be used to make biofuel, fabrics, robe and is an eco friendly alternative to paper. If cannabis was used in the same way as alcohol, not only would less people be using it but it would make it safer, reduce crime, prevent young people from using it and, the huge amounts of money that cannabis makes, wouldn't be going into the hands of the criminals, but would be put back into society in the form of taxes etc. 

List of drugs that have caused more deaths than Cannabis (in no particular order):

Heroin | Caffeine | Aspirin | nicotine | Cocaine | Alcohol | Methadrone (legal highs) |  ecstacy

 

Why is this idea important?

In todays society is it really fair to legalise a plant that nearly every single person in the country has used? Im seventeen years old and tried my first spliff at 13. Every single person i know smokes it and its even easier to get than alcohol. Why? BECAUSE its illegal. Alcohol is so hard to get when young because a person who serves someone who is underage, can get a criminal sentence but they can still make a profit from selling alcohol to people legally allowed to consume it, therefore they are more likely to enforce the law themselves. Thats why the alcohol laws work. sort of.

Cannabis is by far one of the most softest drugs on the streets. Your childs baby food probably has more harmful chemicals in than cannabis. It can also be used for medical purposes and hemp can be used to make biofuel, fabrics, robe and is an eco friendly alternative to paper. If cannabis was used in the same way as alcohol, not only would less people be using it but it would make it safer, reduce crime, prevent young people from using it and, the huge amounts of money that cannabis makes, wouldn't be going into the hands of the criminals, but would be put back into society in the form of taxes etc. 

List of drugs that have caused more deaths than Cannabis (in no particular order):

Heroin | Caffeine | Aspirin | nicotine | Cocaine | Alcohol | Methadrone (legal highs) |  ecstacy

 

Repeal the draconian sections of the CJA, allow us to dance for joy!

It makes great sense to repeal the parts of the CJA that make dancing and listening to music a criminal offence. This has been taken to outrageous lengths by some counties with the loss of liberty, homes(in vehicles) and property that ensues. To find an area that has few near by residents and listen to music and dance all night, celebrating life, the beauty of our countryside and enjoying the company of friends should not be illegal, it should be encouraged. Clearing up afterwards should always be a part of the event and we shouldnt need a license or have to justify, or pay, for the  privilege of being alive and happy to be so. Its rare that people are bothered or aggravated by parties more that one night a year, the locations vary as often as the weather and the attendees, so is being disturbed one night of the year really such a trial? where's the tolerance? dont moan and complain, come and join us, you'd be very welcome.
 

Why is this idea important?

It makes great sense to repeal the parts of the CJA that make dancing and listening to music a criminal offence. This has been taken to outrageous lengths by some counties with the loss of liberty, homes(in vehicles) and property that ensues. To find an area that has few near by residents and listen to music and dance all night, celebrating life, the beauty of our countryside and enjoying the company of friends should not be illegal, it should be encouraged. Clearing up afterwards should always be a part of the event and we shouldnt need a license or have to justify, or pay, for the  privilege of being alive and happy to be so. Its rare that people are bothered or aggravated by parties more that one night a year, the locations vary as often as the weather and the attendees, so is being disturbed one night of the year really such a trial? where's the tolerance? dont moan and complain, come and join us, you'd be very welcome.
 

Abolishing ID cards is expensive & interferes with people’s liberties

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Why is this idea important?

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Ask anyone from most European countries who have been travelling on ID cards for years, and they will tell you that it is madness that Britain wants to get rid of them. This is like introducing the debit card as a replacement for the cheque book then banning it because it takes 10 years for people to get used to the idea and people come up with paranoid ideas about the State monitoring you through the debit cards. News flash. Passports are the same thing as ID cards, they store your details on a database. They are exactly the same except they are bigger.

As someone who travels frequently and who has purchased an ID card, the government is infringing on my liberties by taking away this convenience. I don’t have to remember to pack it unlike a passport and it is very small and convenient. What is more scrapping ID cards is very expensive because the billions spent will have to be spent again once the country comes to it’s senses and the programme is rerun.

Amend the Smoking Ban

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.