Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Why is this idea important?

Israel Has Legalised Medical Marijuana! How long will the UK drag it’s feet, sulking like a naughty school boy who’s been discovered pedaling lies and deceit?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-relaxes-restrictions-on-medical-marijuana-1.312347

So the media makes Israel out to be some sort of monster when in actual fact the evidence suggests that they are far more reasonable, compassionate and concerned for liberty and justice than we are here in the UK!

Israel realises the senseless injustice of criminalising the sick.

Israel understands that it is not humane to remove the right of the sick to be treated by possibly the best natural medication known to man.

Israel has dealt a significant blow to greedy, self obsessed political / corporate agendas because they see such action as NECESSARY and IMPORTANT, indeed, the Jewish people have a saying: "If you haven't got your health, than what have you got?".

They replaced greedy drug policy with humane and compassionate treatment.

Israel sees the hypocrisy. Israel sees the blatant bigotry. Israel sees the complete and utter failure of the drug war.

Israel is doing something about it.

Is the UK really to be the elephant in the room? Standing on our outdated, prejudicial and, frankly, insane principles we are begging to be left behind by other more evolved, liberated and compassionate societies.

The UK government are a disgrace for while the world is turning to a more liberal future, the UK is so steeped in the web of deceit, propaganda, political complicity and corruption that it would seem they cannot untangle themselves from it without also ruining their own careers. Well, personally, I think that any prohibitionist should be forced from their disgraceful and hateful position of power so that they no longer infect reason with their corrupt, illogical, irrational and perverse sense of justice.

Transparency in Retail Banking

When you deposit savings with Banks, Building Societies and even N.S.& I . they are required to quote you a gross and net interest rate in a standard way, the A.E.R. With fixed term products what they usually don't bother to tell you is that at the end of the term you are not able to get access to your money (+interest) without a further delay usually of many days as they like to put a cheque in the post. Some institutions will make a same day CHAPS electronic transfer for a fee, e.g. £25 if you ask. In any case this delay or fee reduces your return and in effect invalidates and reduces the quoted interest rate which has actually been misleading.

This problem has been given a public airing in recent years but nothing has been done. Its time these institutions were legally required to illustrate at the outset how the fee or delay in returning saver's money reduces the interest they receive on their loan to the institution.

Why is this idea important?

When you deposit savings with Banks, Building Societies and even N.S.& I . they are required to quote you a gross and net interest rate in a standard way, the A.E.R. With fixed term products what they usually don't bother to tell you is that at the end of the term you are not able to get access to your money (+interest) without a further delay usually of many days as they like to put a cheque in the post. Some institutions will make a same day CHAPS electronic transfer for a fee, e.g. £25 if you ask. In any case this delay or fee reduces your return and in effect invalidates and reduces the quoted interest rate which has actually been misleading.

This problem has been given a public airing in recent years but nothing has been done. Its time these institutions were legally required to illustrate at the outset how the fee or delay in returning saver's money reduces the interest they receive on their loan to the institution.

Question for Mr. Clegg RE: Why am I a criminal?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

Why is this idea important?

A quick question to you Mr. Clegg to which I would appreciate a straight answer.

I am a hard working citizen who is also in adult education at the moment, studying hard for a Gas Safety qualification. I have never taken any form of welfare from the state as an adult and therefore have cost the state nothing. I am morally adept, ethically minded and a responsible adult. I care for those around me, I help other people wherever and whenever I can whether that's by lifting a heavy suit case down some stairs for a mother who was also trying to look after her child (my most recent good deed) or by any other means. I am an upstanding member of society, I have passed my first aid qualifications and I try to be as good a person as I can be. I actively contribute to the society that I am part of. I used to smoke cannabis regularly and still do on occasion. I am "T" total, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't indulge in any other drug habit. I speak well, am educated and well read. Lastly, I have never caused disruption of the peace, I have never been in a fight nor raised my hand against any other person.

Therefore, my question to you Mr. Clegg is: Please would you describe exactly why the state insists on criminalising me as well as millions like me and, furthermore, please explain in full the criminal act that I am accused of?

If you cannot justify my enduring criminalisation then perhaps you have just answered the question of the immorality of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also why it should be immediately repealed.

A referendum over elements of offensive ethnic cultures

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Why is this idea important?

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Replace compulsory Religious Education with compulsory Moral & Ethical Education

Over the years Relgious Education has evolved from being the detailed study of one or more religions to branch out into the study of morality and ethics.

RE, as it stands in its current form still focuses around a select number of religion and within them specific religious viewpoints.  Therefore when studying the ethics of abortion it is presented mainly from a religious perspective placing any other non-religious positions as secondry counter arguments.  This is negative for two reasons: select religious frameworks are presented as primary positions with other religious or non-religious ethical frameworks as secondry disagreements with the primary positions.  This is a distortion created by the fact that religion is the primary concern within the curriculum.

This is an unfair and prejudiced manner of presenting certain ethical frameworks over others in a manner which creates the illusion of discord between many ethical positions.

To progress the natural evolution of RE into ethics the curriculum should be changed to remove the traidtional theologicaly based detailed study of religions.  This way the ethics can be placed as the primary subject of study.  A more diverse range of ethical frameworks can then be studied and discussed alongside each other on equal footings.

Here are a couple of examples:  currently the study on the ethics of abortion would be first presented from the perspective of religious teachings (primarily Abrahamic teachings: Christian, Muslim and Jewish).  Any other ethical frameworks (e.g. humanism) are presented as being in disagreement and as an aside, not as a primary framework.

In ethics the subject matter of abortion would first be presented.  Then the position of different ethical frameworks would be explored: a liberal religious person (Christian, Muslim etc.), a humanist, or conservative religions and athiest (who would both argue from the perspective of family values).

Consider something that encompasses a wider range of perspecitves.  Food ethics would be currently presented as the differences between Christian, Muslim and Jewish.  In Ethics it would explore those ethical frameworks but also Vegetarianism (in both secular and religious) exploring the comonality, plus the Enviromental frameworks or even those proposing GM as a solution to food ethics (starvation etc.)

As you can see from the few examples Moral and Ethical Education is the only way we can teach children in a way that acknowledges the wide range and diversity of moral frameworks in a secular and multi-cultural society while exploring their similarities and differences in a fair and equal platform.

Why is this idea important?

Over the years Relgious Education has evolved from being the detailed study of one or more religions to branch out into the study of morality and ethics.

RE, as it stands in its current form still focuses around a select number of religion and within them specific religious viewpoints.  Therefore when studying the ethics of abortion it is presented mainly from a religious perspective placing any other non-religious positions as secondry counter arguments.  This is negative for two reasons: select religious frameworks are presented as primary positions with other religious or non-religious ethical frameworks as secondry disagreements with the primary positions.  This is a distortion created by the fact that religion is the primary concern within the curriculum.

This is an unfair and prejudiced manner of presenting certain ethical frameworks over others in a manner which creates the illusion of discord between many ethical positions.

To progress the natural evolution of RE into ethics the curriculum should be changed to remove the traidtional theologicaly based detailed study of religions.  This way the ethics can be placed as the primary subject of study.  A more diverse range of ethical frameworks can then be studied and discussed alongside each other on equal footings.

Here are a couple of examples:  currently the study on the ethics of abortion would be first presented from the perspective of religious teachings (primarily Abrahamic teachings: Christian, Muslim and Jewish).  Any other ethical frameworks (e.g. humanism) are presented as being in disagreement and as an aside, not as a primary framework.

In ethics the subject matter of abortion would first be presented.  Then the position of different ethical frameworks would be explored: a liberal religious person (Christian, Muslim etc.), a humanist, or conservative religions and athiest (who would both argue from the perspective of family values).

Consider something that encompasses a wider range of perspecitves.  Food ethics would be currently presented as the differences between Christian, Muslim and Jewish.  In Ethics it would explore those ethical frameworks but also Vegetarianism (in both secular and religious) exploring the comonality, plus the Enviromental frameworks or even those proposing GM as a solution to food ethics (starvation etc.)

As you can see from the few examples Moral and Ethical Education is the only way we can teach children in a way that acknowledges the wide range and diversity of moral frameworks in a secular and multi-cultural society while exploring their similarities and differences in a fair and equal platform.

Repeal of the Fur Farm Act

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

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.