Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Why is this idea important?

The MDA1971 denies citizens equal property rights for certain people who use certain drugs.

The aim of the MDA1971 is to ameliorate the harms of certain drugs on individuals and society. An impact assessment of this Act has never been carried out. The Act remains rooted in historical and cultural precedents which bear no resemblance to the scientific reality. No law should ever be based upon such precedents.

The Act has caused untold damage to millions of individual's lives, communities and society as a whole. It has criminalised millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens for choosing to use certain drugs in a peaceful manner.

Drug users are afforded property rights over alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee; yet these very same rights are denied to users of other drugs, purely for historical and cultural reasons. The current situation is one where 'legal' implies that a drug is 'OK', but 'illegal' equates to 'not OK'; within the context of comparing cannabis with alcohol the implication is extremely damaging. It undermines any important public health messages that need to be made. The prohibition of certain drugs places a blanket of silence over them, preventing any meaningful discussion or debate about the health implications of using these drugs either alone or in combination with others.

It also dilutes the most important message of all: that we must distinguish between drug use and drug misuse.

Lobby Groups With Power Are Killing Democracy

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Why is this idea important?

SOURCE:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-demand-an-increase-in-the-minimum-price-of-alcohol-1861401.html

The drinks industry depends for its profits on people drinking harmfully or hazardously who between them consume three-quarters of all the alcohol sold in Britain, a committee of MPs will say today. Accusing ministers of a "failure of will" over controlling the industry, they will point out that if people drank responsibly, within the limits advised by medical organisations, sales of alcohol would plummet by 40 per cent.

But health warnings about the dangers of excessive drinking are drowned out by an industry that peddles myths to promote its sales, according to the MPs. In a scathing analysis of the stranglehold which the drinks industry has over the Government and the nation, the all-party Commons health select committee will accuse ministers of cosying up to the firms that dominate the market.

It calls for tough measures to curb alcohol consumption, including a minimum price of at least 40p per unit compared with supermarket prices that are as low as 10p a unit, a rise in duty, independent regulation of alcohol promotion and mandatory labelling.

The idea of a minimum price, aimed principally at supermarket promotions where beer can cost less than water, was first raised by the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson last year but was immediately rejected by Gordon Brown because, he claimed, it would penalise moderate drinkers.

The health committee will flatly reject this argument as a myth fostered by the alcohol lobby, saying that at 40p a unit it would cost a moderate drinker consuming the average six units weekly (three pints of ordinary bitter) 11p more a week than at present. A woman drinking 15 units a week, equivalent to one and a quarter bottles of wine, could buy her weekly total of alcohol for £6.

Kevin Barron, chairman of the committee said: "The facts about alcohol are shocking. Successive governments have failed to tackle the problem and it is now time for bold government. Even small reductions in the number of people using alcohol could save the NHS millions. What is required is fundamental cultural change. Only this way are we likely to reduce the dangerous numbers of young people drinking their lives away."

One in 10 of the population consumes almost half (44 per cent) of all the alcohol drunk. Consumption has soared in recent decades and three times as much is now drunk per head as in the middle of the last century. Alcohol is estimated to cause 30,000 to 40,000 deaths a year.

 

It is calculated that a minimum price of 50p a unit would save more than 3,000 lives a year. But the response of successive governments had "ranged from the non-existent to the ineffectual", the committee will say.

Simon Litherland, managing director of Diageo GB, the world's largest beer, wine and spirits firm, said: "This report represents yet another attempt by aggressive sections of the health lobby to hijack alcohol policy-making."

Public health minister Gillian Merron said: "Alcohol is an increasing challenge to people's health – we are working hard to reverse the trend and are constantly seeking better ways to tackle it."

Cannabis yet again.

It really is time to repeal the unjust classification of cannabis, there are far to many users of it in Britain today who are not in any other way shape or form criminals, the problem for them is that in order to purchase a substance far less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol they are forced to deal with those that are truly on the wrong side of the law. The vast majority of people involved in its use would gladly pay tax if it was available legally.

Now this is not a new idea, and will probably be repeated many times during this dicussion, and then shouted down again by the minority who are against it (the same minority who are usually badly informed and by far louder than the silent Majority).

There is a wonderful article available in the archives at www.independent.co.uk by Johann Hari which explains all of the problems caused by prohibition of something that citizens dont want prohibited and I would advise anyone interested to seek it out.

There is an issue with health issues associated with it of course, but no more than smoking the legally available Nicotine products, and with no addictive properties if consumed with non-tobacco methods, of which there are many available. Studies show that memory can be affected in young animals when tested, but when tested on adult animals those problems do not arise, which again is a reason to get it legalised and regulated to keep it away from children.

Finally, I wont go over all the old arguments, but I will give my view on one that always gets raised, and that is "Super Skunk", as a cannabis user I to am against this particular strain and compare it strongly to the Bathtub whisky that was popular during the Alcohol prohibition in the states. A Legal and regulated distribution would remove the popularity of this as it is only 1 of the literally thousands of strains available, its main appeal being that when forced to pay large prices for small amounts people demand more bang for their buck!.

I really do hope that this time the Goverment does not dismiss the scientific advice forcing its drug advisors to resign again, or settle for a board of yes men which will serve no benefit to a forward thinking society.

As an afterthought anyone in doubt can look at the statistics for other Eurozone countries who have taken a more mature attitude towards it, namely being Portugal and of course Holland, both of whom have a very liberal stance towards it and neither has degenerated into mass riots and streets filled with mentally ill people. Even in America who with Egypts help brought the prohibition to the UN in the first place (in a move to show political strength at home) it is now medically available in the "Entire" western half of the states with some eastern states already on board, and many more flooring motions at their state level, and some even moving to sell it to over 21s in order to regain the lost tax and remove the vast amount of cash from the hands of organised crime.

I hope my two pence worth was worth the effort and I thank anyone who took the time to read it with an open mind.

For the record.

I am in my mid 30s, have worked full time all my life, and do not have a criminal record, I also class myself entirely as a law abiding citizen.

Why is this idea important?

It really is time to repeal the unjust classification of cannabis, there are far to many users of it in Britain today who are not in any other way shape or form criminals, the problem for them is that in order to purchase a substance far less harmful than both nicotine and alcohol they are forced to deal with those that are truly on the wrong side of the law. The vast majority of people involved in its use would gladly pay tax if it was available legally.

Now this is not a new idea, and will probably be repeated many times during this dicussion, and then shouted down again by the minority who are against it (the same minority who are usually badly informed and by far louder than the silent Majority).

There is a wonderful article available in the archives at www.independent.co.uk by Johann Hari which explains all of the problems caused by prohibition of something that citizens dont want prohibited and I would advise anyone interested to seek it out.

There is an issue with health issues associated with it of course, but no more than smoking the legally available Nicotine products, and with no addictive properties if consumed with non-tobacco methods, of which there are many available. Studies show that memory can be affected in young animals when tested, but when tested on adult animals those problems do not arise, which again is a reason to get it legalised and regulated to keep it away from children.

Finally, I wont go over all the old arguments, but I will give my view on one that always gets raised, and that is "Super Skunk", as a cannabis user I to am against this particular strain and compare it strongly to the Bathtub whisky that was popular during the Alcohol prohibition in the states. A Legal and regulated distribution would remove the popularity of this as it is only 1 of the literally thousands of strains available, its main appeal being that when forced to pay large prices for small amounts people demand more bang for their buck!.

I really do hope that this time the Goverment does not dismiss the scientific advice forcing its drug advisors to resign again, or settle for a board of yes men which will serve no benefit to a forward thinking society.

As an afterthought anyone in doubt can look at the statistics for other Eurozone countries who have taken a more mature attitude towards it, namely being Portugal and of course Holland, both of whom have a very liberal stance towards it and neither has degenerated into mass riots and streets filled with mentally ill people. Even in America who with Egypts help brought the prohibition to the UN in the first place (in a move to show political strength at home) it is now medically available in the "Entire" western half of the states with some eastern states already on board, and many more flooring motions at their state level, and some even moving to sell it to over 21s in order to regain the lost tax and remove the vast amount of cash from the hands of organised crime.

I hope my two pence worth was worth the effort and I thank anyone who took the time to read it with an open mind.

For the record.

I am in my mid 30s, have worked full time all my life, and do not have a criminal record, I also class myself entirely as a law abiding citizen.

cannabis legalisation! brain damage=lies!

cannabis should be legalized and regulated just like alcohol. People have changed and times have changed. ive wrote in to the govermant many of times about this problem the UK has, and im sure many people have. but all them times writing not once did i get anything back. i think the government is a disgrace for putting inncoent people in cells and giving out criminal records for smoking a plant that was here before any of us. they should be more concerned with the real criminals out there.

Brain damage


there is no proof of brain damage. do some real research. in the early 1900s. might have been 1930s. they conducted an experiment with monkeys. they put gas masks on monkeys for really long periods of time and pumped cannabis smoke into there bodies. while they where doing this no oxygen was being allowed into there system. so when they took the masks of and examined the monkeys they realised they had lost brain cells. and that is where the pheory comes from. but… when your body has a sufficent lack of oxygen brain cells start to die. which is what happend. and also they whre pumped with an exccesive amount of smoke that a human wouldnt even be able to consume. also cannabis does very small damage on the lungs. possibly none when. this is only when smoked in pure form. there has even been research that cannabis helps clean the lungs of flem. cannabis does not have the same cancer striken chemicals as ciggeretes. and also cannabis is not phisically addivtive like alcohol. alcohol is one of the worst addictions there are. and most harmful drugs.
 so please do some research first. legitamte research. not all these lies by the goverment and FRANK!

sorry guys a bit rushed

Why is this idea important?

cannabis should be legalized and regulated just like alcohol. People have changed and times have changed. ive wrote in to the govermant many of times about this problem the UK has, and im sure many people have. but all them times writing not once did i get anything back. i think the government is a disgrace for putting inncoent people in cells and giving out criminal records for smoking a plant that was here before any of us. they should be more concerned with the real criminals out there.

Brain damage


there is no proof of brain damage. do some real research. in the early 1900s. might have been 1930s. they conducted an experiment with monkeys. they put gas masks on monkeys for really long periods of time and pumped cannabis smoke into there bodies. while they where doing this no oxygen was being allowed into there system. so when they took the masks of and examined the monkeys they realised they had lost brain cells. and that is where the pheory comes from. but… when your body has a sufficent lack of oxygen brain cells start to die. which is what happend. and also they whre pumped with an exccesive amount of smoke that a human wouldnt even be able to consume. also cannabis does very small damage on the lungs. possibly none when. this is only when smoked in pure form. there has even been research that cannabis helps clean the lungs of flem. cannabis does not have the same cancer striken chemicals as ciggeretes. and also cannabis is not phisically addivtive like alcohol. alcohol is one of the worst addictions there are. and most harmful drugs.
 so please do some research first. legitamte research. not all these lies by the goverment and FRANK!

sorry guys a bit rushed

We want the governement to explain this –Sativex– vs–Cannabis–

As a matter of fact…

Sativex is an oromucosal (mouth) spray developed by the UK company GW Pharmaceuticals for multiple sclerosis patients, who can use it to alleviate neuropathic pain, spasticity, overactive bladder, and other symptoms. Sativex is also being prescribed to alleviate pain due to cancer and has been researched in various models of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Sativex is distinct from all other pharmaceutically produced cannabinoids currently available because it is derived from botanical material, rather than a solely synthetic process. Sativex is a pharmaceutical product standardised in composition, formulation, and dose. Its principal active cannabinoid components are the cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The product is formulated as an oromucosal spray which is administered by spraying into the mouth. Each spray of Sativex delivers a fixed dose of 2.7mg THC and 2.5mg CBD.

Now can the government to explain to us this:

Why do you approve prescribing a medicine that is made of cannabis to people with multiple sclerosis But at the same time you send the same ill people to prison for cultivating their own plants?

Is it all about money ? how can you tell people that they can buy cannabis of the governement but if they are caught bying it elswhere or growing it you would send them to prison?

Is this not denying civil liberties to people?

Why is this idea important?

As a matter of fact…

Sativex is an oromucosal (mouth) spray developed by the UK company GW Pharmaceuticals for multiple sclerosis patients, who can use it to alleviate neuropathic pain, spasticity, overactive bladder, and other symptoms. Sativex is also being prescribed to alleviate pain due to cancer and has been researched in various models of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. Sativex is distinct from all other pharmaceutically produced cannabinoids currently available because it is derived from botanical material, rather than a solely synthetic process. Sativex is a pharmaceutical product standardised in composition, formulation, and dose. Its principal active cannabinoid components are the cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The product is formulated as an oromucosal spray which is administered by spraying into the mouth. Each spray of Sativex delivers a fixed dose of 2.7mg THC and 2.5mg CBD.

Now can the government to explain to us this:

Why do you approve prescribing a medicine that is made of cannabis to people with multiple sclerosis But at the same time you send the same ill people to prison for cultivating their own plants?

Is it all about money ? how can you tell people that they can buy cannabis of the governement but if they are caught bying it elswhere or growing it you would send them to prison?

Is this not denying civil liberties to people?

A few things to ponder

1. Stop migrants and asylum seekers entering the country until it’s in a better state financially.
2. Stop outsourcing work from within the public sector to the private sector. The companies that are handed the work are not trained, do not know what they’re doing and often ends up with the same thing being done twice.
3. Increase the salary of the public sector (non-managerial posts) employees in line with those within the private sector doing the same job. Public sector AO earns 15000 approx whereas the average salary for the same job within the private sector is approx 18000.
4. Put a stop to bumper bonuses for high paid bankers – those same bankers responsible for destroying the economy of the country.
5. Collect the £100+ million owed from tax evasion/avoidance and jail those who fail to pay (take not Mr H Redknapp).
6. Castrate all convicted paedophiles when there is no doubt to the crime committed. Simple really, to prevent the urge remove the source of it.
7. On a more serious note, prevent Katie ‘Whoredon’ Price from appearing on a television.
8. Name, shame and maim rapists – see action re paedophiles.
9. Limit each average household to 2 cars.
10. I don’t divulge myself but enough people do… Legalise marijuana and tax it. People smoke it anyway so there may as well be a bonus from it.
11. Legalise prostitution. Protect the vulnerable who are forced into it, health checks on a weekly basis and make it harder for the underage to become involved.
12. Murder – life means life. Consider re-introducing the death penalty for serial and child killers.
13. Scrap the human rights bill – it only serves to protect those who don’t deserve it.
There may be more… I’ll be back

Why is this idea important?

1. Stop migrants and asylum seekers entering the country until it’s in a better state financially.
2. Stop outsourcing work from within the public sector to the private sector. The companies that are handed the work are not trained, do not know what they’re doing and often ends up with the same thing being done twice.
3. Increase the salary of the public sector (non-managerial posts) employees in line with those within the private sector doing the same job. Public sector AO earns 15000 approx whereas the average salary for the same job within the private sector is approx 18000.
4. Put a stop to bumper bonuses for high paid bankers – those same bankers responsible for destroying the economy of the country.
5. Collect the £100+ million owed from tax evasion/avoidance and jail those who fail to pay (take not Mr H Redknapp).
6. Castrate all convicted paedophiles when there is no doubt to the crime committed. Simple really, to prevent the urge remove the source of it.
7. On a more serious note, prevent Katie ‘Whoredon’ Price from appearing on a television.
8. Name, shame and maim rapists – see action re paedophiles.
9. Limit each average household to 2 cars.
10. I don’t divulge myself but enough people do… Legalise marijuana and tax it. People smoke it anyway so there may as well be a bonus from it.
11. Legalise prostitution. Protect the vulnerable who are forced into it, health checks on a weekly basis and make it harder for the underage to become involved.
12. Murder – life means life. Consider re-introducing the death penalty for serial and child killers.
13. Scrap the human rights bill – it only serves to protect those who don’t deserve it.
There may be more… I’ll be back

Legalise Cannabis

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

Why is this idea important?

The dutch system would work fine in the UK apart from that there the cannabis is still supplyed illegally. This is why I sugest full legalisation as it would remove the criminal element and create a fully taxable market.

 

Note/

Cannabis is less harmfull than alcohol and tobacco (two bigest killers in the uk, bigger than ALL illegal drugs combined) with 0 deaths in all its hystory of use. It has no overdose limit.

Also the link betwenn cannabis and schizophrenia is non existant. As cannabis use has rapidly increased, the cases of schizophreniahave remain the same (3%-4% of the population).

BBC News just quoted that 40% of NHS A&E is taken up by alcohol abusers. LEGALISE CANNABIS NOW!

So many adults are forced to drink as their only legal high and form of rest and relaxation. It’s so unethical and irresponsible a policy, just look at the BBC News statistic that states 40% of A&E is taken up by alcoholic issues. Legalise cannabis and free adult citizens to at least have a choice as to what drug they wish to relax with.

Why is this idea important?

So many adults are forced to drink as their only legal high and form of rest and relaxation. It’s so unethical and irresponsible a policy, just look at the BBC News statistic that states 40% of A&E is taken up by alcoholic issues. Legalise cannabis and free adult citizens to at least have a choice as to what drug they wish to relax with.

Do NOT decriminalize cannabis…

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Why is this idea important?

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

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

Freedom to grow cannabis for personal use.

Freedom to grow and dry cannabis if it is

*for personal use only

*not for resale or supply to others

*not grown with propagation equipment and lights, but naturally

*the grower is over the age of 21

*in your own home or garden, and not on an allotment or public space, or someone else's land.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom to grow and dry cannabis if it is

*for personal use only

*not for resale or supply to others

*not grown with propagation equipment and lights, but naturally

*the grower is over the age of 21

*in your own home or garden, and not on an allotment or public space, or someone else's land.

Rules for regulation of Cannabis Cultivation for personal use by adults in private

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Why is this idea important?

It would be impractical and arbitrary to specify a number of plants that it would be legal to grow for personal use. It would be difficult to distinguish between mature plants and seedlings or cuttings by simple numerical count. I propose that instead limits be placed on the size of area utilised in any cultivation set up and, if using artificial lights, the number and power employed.

An individual may not cultivate cannabis at more than one postal address and that address must be their main residence, the address at which they are registered on the electoral role, and they may only cultivate at that address whilst the electoral role is in force. They would be required to have a valid registration on the electoral role for the address at which they are cultivating.

No other limitation on the method of production should be imposed.

No limitation on the number of crops produced in a year should be imposed.

No limitation should be imposed on the amount of material between being harvested and becoming ready for consumption that an individual would be allowed to store save that it be for personal use only in private by adults, be stored at the same postal address at which it is cultivated  and that it not be sold or supplied to others by any commercial transaction so that the individual cultivator cannot make any personal gain.

The Government shall not be permitted to impose any charge, tax or licence on an individual cultivating cannabis for personal use in private by adults or levy any tax or charge on the cannabis they produce.

Any equipment used for cultivation shall not carry any additional charge or tax other than the current level of VAT at the point of sale.

There may be some debate as to what restrictions in terms of size of area used for cultivation and the number of artificial lights that should be permitted under this proposal.

I would suggest as a starting point for discussion that an area of no more than three square meters in total and two lamps of 400W or one of 1000W would be reasonable. 

Others may have different views.

It would be possible that within the maximum limit  of square meters this could be sub divided and spread over different locations within the single permitted postal address so that a grower could maintain an area for seedlings and cuttings as well as an area for maturing plants in the flowering stage.

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Marijuana is a cure for cancer

Smoking causes cancer, so if you smoke Marijuana it is true that you risk cancer just like you do if you smoke tobacco. But the important point to remember with this is that it is the smoke that damages your health, not the marijuana. Smoking is not illegal. Marijuana is illegal, more specifically THC is illegal. But it is now a proven fact that THC has no cancer causing properties at all, but infact is a most effective cure for cancer. It has been proven by Scientist from Oxford and Harvard, and by a canadian called Rick Simpson who succesfully cured many people from many serious cancers with THC in the form of hemp oil. There has never been any good reason for Marijuana to be illegal. It is a natural substance and, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive or harmful in any way. Now that is has become confirmed that THC is a cure for cancer, aswell as being an effective medicine for sufferers of diabetes, aids, MS, arthritis and much more, it is simply criminal for any government to outlaw it. For everyday that goes by there are people suffering and dying from cancer because they are being denied a possible cure. THC is a harmless, natural drug which has much medicinal value. It is irrelevant wether you personally like using marijuana as a social drug, an alternative to alcohol. To make a natural plant illegal and to deam those who use it for medicinal or social reasons as criminals is nothing short of fashism. It is oppression to criminalise people who are causing no harm to anyone. I would like to know how politicians sleep at night when they deny people medicine. When they deny a cure for cancer that is completely natural and could be completely free to all those that suffer daily. Is it because it is natural and there for could be free. Is because it could replace so many less effective, more harmful medicines that are man made, unnatural and there for patentable and basically make lots of money.

Why is this idea important?

Smoking causes cancer, so if you smoke Marijuana it is true that you risk cancer just like you do if you smoke tobacco. But the important point to remember with this is that it is the smoke that damages your health, not the marijuana. Smoking is not illegal. Marijuana is illegal, more specifically THC is illegal. But it is now a proven fact that THC has no cancer causing properties at all, but infact is a most effective cure for cancer. It has been proven by Scientist from Oxford and Harvard, and by a canadian called Rick Simpson who succesfully cured many people from many serious cancers with THC in the form of hemp oil. There has never been any good reason for Marijuana to be illegal. It is a natural substance and, unlike alcohol, is not physically addictive or harmful in any way. Now that is has become confirmed that THC is a cure for cancer, aswell as being an effective medicine for sufferers of diabetes, aids, MS, arthritis and much more, it is simply criminal for any government to outlaw it. For everyday that goes by there are people suffering and dying from cancer because they are being denied a possible cure. THC is a harmless, natural drug which has much medicinal value. It is irrelevant wether you personally like using marijuana as a social drug, an alternative to alcohol. To make a natural plant illegal and to deam those who use it for medicinal or social reasons as criminals is nothing short of fashism. It is oppression to criminalise people who are causing no harm to anyone. I would like to know how politicians sleep at night when they deny people medicine. When they deny a cure for cancer that is completely natural and could be completely free to all those that suffer daily. Is it because it is natural and there for could be free. Is because it could replace so many less effective, more harmful medicines that are man made, unnatural and there for patentable and basically make lots of money.

Irrefutable proof that the prohibition of marijuana is immoral.

The two main reasons given for the illegality of marijuana is that firstly it may cause cancer, and secondly it may lead to mental illness. Neither of these claims have any significant proof behind them. Look at the evidence, there is no firm proof that cannabis is harmful like alcohol and tobacco, however I will try and avoid pointing this out as cannabis should not be made legal just because it is less bad then the two most lethal drugs out there. Instead I will try and make a logical and irrefutable argument against the prohibition of marijuana.

Marijuana is a plant and THC is a drug inside the plant. If the government were justified in making marijuana illegal then surely the more THC within the plant the more harm the user would come to from smoking marijuana however that simply is not true. A hash (concentrated extract of marijuana) smoker has to smoke less to achieve their high so the risk of cancer coming about from burning side products of the plant are reduced. So by making marijuana illegal you have essentially made it more harmful to the users health, turned it from something which is VERY unlikely to cause cancer, and in fact has been shown to have a curative effect on some cancers (inhaling a small amount of hash smoke) to something that may or may not cause cancer (smoking herbal cannabis).

Furthermore prohibition hasn't prevented cannabis use, it has merely pushed the profits in to the hands of the dealers at great expense of the tax payer. Dealers are now cutting their cannabis with fibreglass beads in order to add weight, while nobody really knows the negative side effects of smoking fibreglass it cannot be good for you. This is a huge problem effecting nearly all herbal "Skunk" sold in the UK. This is getting ridiculous, prohibition is stopping nobody but it is harming everybody's health. If THC were truly a harmful drug then hash would be worse for you then herbal cannabis not better for you. As their doesn't seem to be any reason to keep cannabis illegal why keep going?

Why is this idea important?

The two main reasons given for the illegality of marijuana is that firstly it may cause cancer, and secondly it may lead to mental illness. Neither of these claims have any significant proof behind them. Look at the evidence, there is no firm proof that cannabis is harmful like alcohol and tobacco, however I will try and avoid pointing this out as cannabis should not be made legal just because it is less bad then the two most lethal drugs out there. Instead I will try and make a logical and irrefutable argument against the prohibition of marijuana.

Marijuana is a plant and THC is a drug inside the plant. If the government were justified in making marijuana illegal then surely the more THC within the plant the more harm the user would come to from smoking marijuana however that simply is not true. A hash (concentrated extract of marijuana) smoker has to smoke less to achieve their high so the risk of cancer coming about from burning side products of the plant are reduced. So by making marijuana illegal you have essentially made it more harmful to the users health, turned it from something which is VERY unlikely to cause cancer, and in fact has been shown to have a curative effect on some cancers (inhaling a small amount of hash smoke) to something that may or may not cause cancer (smoking herbal cannabis).

Furthermore prohibition hasn't prevented cannabis use, it has merely pushed the profits in to the hands of the dealers at great expense of the tax payer. Dealers are now cutting their cannabis with fibreglass beads in order to add weight, while nobody really knows the negative side effects of smoking fibreglass it cannot be good for you. This is a huge problem effecting nearly all herbal "Skunk" sold in the UK. This is getting ridiculous, prohibition is stopping nobody but it is harming everybody's health. If THC were truly a harmful drug then hash would be worse for you then herbal cannabis not better for you. As their doesn't seem to be any reason to keep cannabis illegal why keep going?

“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!

————–

Legalise it!

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that Cannabis should either be legalised or decriminalised as the benefits to our health, society and world far out way the negative factors, which in comparison to a lot of other legal drugs (including our much loved alcohol) does significantly and almost minimal harm to the user and those around them. 

In America we're already seeing states taking the initiative to legalise Marijuana, at least for medical purposes, so why do we not see the same type of progressive thinking here? If Cannabis is so deadly, so harmful to our mental health, then where's the abundance of evidence to prove so? Cannabis isn't a new thing. In fact, it's cultivation and use dates back 10,000 years – a figure in which many historians agree to be accurate – so if anything negative was going to show up, it would've already done so by now. 

This isn't radical thinking: it's called being progressive. We all want to live in a fairer, greener world, and with the help of Cannabis and Hemp, we're able to do so. It's time to do the research, educate the public and stop the ignorance.

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

Why is this idea important?

Make drugs a health issue, not a criminal one, for the user.  Decriminalise drugs and treat all those who want help including those with alcohol problems, this could be  funded from the savings made through the police, courts and prisons.  We are told 40% of 'criminals' are in prison for drug issues, if we say 10% of those were not just 'users' that still leaves 30% of the 85,000 prisoners each costing us £38,000 per year we are told. Do the math, it's a lot of money that could be better spent.  

There is very sound evidence that decriminalisation of drugs results in a lessening of drug taking and its associated problems in the countries brave enough to go this route with their 'drug problem'. 

Countries like America literally have a 'War on drugs' with their own citizens that I personally think is downright undemocratic.  We are British/European not American!

current drug policy failure

I am a pharmacy worker in the south of England and dispence drugs on a regualar daily basis.From aspirin to zopiclone i handle all kinds of drugs, some of which i can only dispence if i wear gloves as they are so toxic.
In my opinion the current laws regarding the use of certain illegal drugs are not only outdated (1971),but are actually counter productive in their approach to harm reduction and misleading to users as well as the general public.
To put it bluntly the current classification of drugs is not only flawed, but unscientific and potentially dangerous.
One example is the re-classification of Cannabis…
If you pidgeon-hole cannabis in the same drug section as a more dangerous drug,there is the inherant danger that Cannabis users may regard that drug as no more harmful than Cannabis, as it is in the same section.
Most informed people know that Cannabis is one of the safest drugs on the planet,even if they don’t use it themselves (bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a 100% safe drug).We have thousands of years of evidence to support this fact, from archaic script of the medicinal use of the drug through time, to the present day American style Cannabis prescribing. Unfortunately thanks to modern day ‘reefer madness’ tabloid hype and political pressure, a large proportion of the the UK public still thinks that society would descend into chaos if Cannabis was made legal, and sneer and tut when the dutch example is refered to.
Given the current economic climate this is unfortunate as it would not only free up police and court services time,as well as emptying a fair amount of prison space (which as we all know = money) but also generate a huge amount of revenue through direct product taxation or even some kind of ‘home grown’ tax if it were truly controlled, and not just said to be controlled, by the state.As it stands now the only people in control of the illicit drug trade are the criminal underworld which also has links to terrorist chains which then goes on to perpetuate even more crime,only this time on a larger more grotesque scale.(911,7/7 etc)

Why is this idea important?

I am a pharmacy worker in the south of England and dispence drugs on a regualar daily basis.From aspirin to zopiclone i handle all kinds of drugs, some of which i can only dispence if i wear gloves as they are so toxic.
In my opinion the current laws regarding the use of certain illegal drugs are not only outdated (1971),but are actually counter productive in their approach to harm reduction and misleading to users as well as the general public.
To put it bluntly the current classification of drugs is not only flawed, but unscientific and potentially dangerous.
One example is the re-classification of Cannabis…
If you pidgeon-hole cannabis in the same drug section as a more dangerous drug,there is the inherant danger that Cannabis users may regard that drug as no more harmful than Cannabis, as it is in the same section.
Most informed people know that Cannabis is one of the safest drugs on the planet,even if they don’t use it themselves (bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a 100% safe drug).We have thousands of years of evidence to support this fact, from archaic script of the medicinal use of the drug through time, to the present day American style Cannabis prescribing. Unfortunately thanks to modern day ‘reefer madness’ tabloid hype and political pressure, a large proportion of the the UK public still thinks that society would descend into chaos if Cannabis was made legal, and sneer and tut when the dutch example is refered to.
Given the current economic climate this is unfortunate as it would not only free up police and court services time,as well as emptying a fair amount of prison space (which as we all know = money) but also generate a huge amount of revenue through direct product taxation or even some kind of ‘home grown’ tax if it were truly controlled, and not just said to be controlled, by the state.As it stands now the only people in control of the illicit drug trade are the criminal underworld which also has links to terrorist chains which then goes on to perpetuate even more crime,only this time on a larger more grotesque scale.(911,7/7 etc)

Legalise cannabis for 18 year olds and over

Quite simply, the many arguments in favour outweigh those against.  In these austere times in particular  the government could do with the revenue, which could be used to help offset the disadvantages. 

Make available on prescription first, print health warnings on packets when it is sold in the shops.  As it can be eaten, Waitrose could make it available in cakes with no risk of adverse effects from smoking. 

It should be well regulated, though.  Highly concentrated strains should perhaps not be available or allowed to be grown. The very fact that drugs are demonised, when they patently carry benefits, sends a confusing message.  A more civilised, sophisticated approach to them is needed.

Why is this idea important?

Quite simply, the many arguments in favour outweigh those against.  In these austere times in particular  the government could do with the revenue, which could be used to help offset the disadvantages. 

Make available on prescription first, print health warnings on packets when it is sold in the shops.  As it can be eaten, Waitrose could make it available in cakes with no risk of adverse effects from smoking. 

It should be well regulated, though.  Highly concentrated strains should perhaps not be available or allowed to be grown. The very fact that drugs are demonised, when they patently carry benefits, sends a confusing message.  A more civilised, sophisticated approach to them is needed.

Give people the right to use/cultivate Cannabis for personal/recreational/medicinal use.

This needs little explanation as there are already loads of the same suggestion out there. I'm just helping to make sure the point is made that thousands of us support this cause and that something needs to be done about it.

Why is this idea important?

This needs little explanation as there are already loads of the same suggestion out there. I'm just helping to make sure the point is made that thousands of us support this cause and that something needs to be done about it.

Legalise use of cannabis in licensed areas and private property.

I'm sure this topic will have been brought up by many people and has been a very controversial one amongst the government.

It's well known that the majority of the UK's cannabis smokers would press for the legalisation of cannabis and the government's ruling on its use I believe is very unfair. I'm 19, a student at university and a regular smoker. 

I believe cannabis should be legalised to a certain degree more specifically for use on one's own property/land and in areas designated for smoking cannabis e.g. a specialised coffee shop but not for use in public areas.

As for the age requirement I don't have many opinions on it, I will leave that for the state to look over. But more importantly, the ability to smoke cannabis should be debated for people with certain jobs such as factory workers who could face danger whilst under the influence.

Why is this idea important?

I'm sure this topic will have been brought up by many people and has been a very controversial one amongst the government.

It's well known that the majority of the UK's cannabis smokers would press for the legalisation of cannabis and the government's ruling on its use I believe is very unfair. I'm 19, a student at university and a regular smoker. 

I believe cannabis should be legalised to a certain degree more specifically for use on one's own property/land and in areas designated for smoking cannabis e.g. a specialised coffee shop but not for use in public areas.

As for the age requirement I don't have many opinions on it, I will leave that for the state to look over. But more importantly, the ability to smoke cannabis should be debated for people with certain jobs such as factory workers who could face danger whilst under the influence.

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

End the futile War on Drugs.

Why should the legacy of Richard M Nixon's failure of policy resonate on these shores almost 40 years on?

 

It is a gross violation of civil liberties to prohibit these substances for personal use and have police violate people's privacy if they are even suspected of breaching these draconian laws. 

 

It is time for Britain to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and withdraw from the UN convention on Narcotics, removing control of the supply and manafacture of such things from foreign criminal gangs.

Why is this idea important?

Why should the legacy of Richard M Nixon's failure of policy resonate on these shores almost 40 years on?

 

It is a gross violation of civil liberties to prohibit these substances for personal use and have police violate people's privacy if they are even suspected of breaching these draconian laws. 

 

It is time for Britain to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and withdraw from the UN convention on Narcotics, removing control of the supply and manafacture of such things from foreign criminal gangs.