Ban Smoking in Public, not Private, Places

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Why is this idea important?

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Repeal the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000

Please remove this law because it is used unwisely by the Authorities to the detriment and great loss of a right to personal privacy for the people of this country.

Why is this idea important?

Please remove this law because it is used unwisely by the Authorities to the detriment and great loss of a right to personal privacy for the people of this country.

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.

INIQUITOUS ‘SORN’ LAW MUST BE REPEALED

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

Why is this idea important?

No law that is flawed should be on the statute books.

It makes criminals of honest, law abiding people.

Take the scenario that is common since we joined the EU.

A worker sent to work in one of the companies offices in Paris for 6-12 months.

That worker returns to his home here in the UK, to find several pieces of mail in his letterbox.

ONE – a fine of eighty pounds from DVLA for not re-taxing his car in time.

TWO – a summons from the local magistrates court for not paying the eighty pound fine on time.

THREE – a note from the local police station asking him to call in at his convenience, because he has got an arrest warrant for not turning up in court when he was summoned!

Thanks to the 'SORN' law!

What village idiot thought this one up?

Charles I lost his head for less!

This abominable law must be repealed – now!

Reform Data Protection Legislation

Protection of personal data is areasonable aim, but the operation of the current law creates obstruction not protection.  At present many public and private organisations hide behind data protection legislation citing it as a reason for failing to provide adequate customer service two examples, there are many many others:

– My library will not allow me to know the books other members of the family have taken out in order to check and return them .

– My gas, phone and power utilities providers will only speak to the 'account holder'.

This is not protecting anyones' privacy it is obstructing the reasonable operation of household units.  At the very least there should be a requirement for any organisation believing the act forces them to implement the controls to allow people to 'opt out' of such 'protection' or nominate others who may access all the information involved.  

This would greatly reduce the cost of bureaucracy and wasted time.

Why is this idea important?

Protection of personal data is areasonable aim, but the operation of the current law creates obstruction not protection.  At present many public and private organisations hide behind data protection legislation citing it as a reason for failing to provide adequate customer service two examples, there are many many others:

– My library will not allow me to know the books other members of the family have taken out in order to check and return them .

– My gas, phone and power utilities providers will only speak to the 'account holder'.

This is not protecting anyones' privacy it is obstructing the reasonable operation of household units.  At the very least there should be a requirement for any organisation believing the act forces them to implement the controls to allow people to 'opt out' of such 'protection' or nominate others who may access all the information involved.  

This would greatly reduce the cost of bureaucracy and wasted time.

Legalise Cannabis cultivation for Medical/Personal use & introduce a growing Lisence, similar to a fishing lisence

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I will keep my idea simple, as all the other messages/ideas, have pointed out the obvious points to semi-legalising the natural drug that is "cannabis" :

 

1.WHY SHOULD THE UK GOVERNMENT REVOLT THE LAW & ALLOW US TO GROW CANNABIS AT HOME

 

The FACT is thousands of people in the UK are already growing Cannabis for their own use, some for personal use/pleasure, others for medical help / health benefits. The Hydroponic & Seed company's are popping up all over the place at the moment, and this is helping with our economy. The problem is, and really think about this…. IT IS ILLEGAL in the UK TO GROW A SEED! , yes a seed, that mother nature put on this earth for us all to enjoy the fruits.  This its self is so WRONG!. but i have not come on here to grumble and moan, so i will get to my idea!…

2.  MY SUGGESTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT

What i suggest, is we relax the law on cultivation of cannabis, and allow a person, to rightly grow up to a certain amount of plants say(4 to 8) for our own use. To regulate this, and generate some income to the government at the same time, I suggest we incorporate a Liscence sceme, where if you wanted to grow cannabis in your own home, you would have to purchase, this liscence or apply for this  licence as you would a firearm.

This could then be regulated with spot visits, by the police or an agency that is put into place, similar / on the same lines as the environment agency and fishing liscening scheme. to ensure people are not growing over the limit(s).

 

3. WHY THIS WOULD WORK?

I Believe this would work, as the government could regulate, the people that are growing cannabis, just as they do with people that own firearms. 

Most people who are growing at the moment, are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and enjoy the pleasures of growing a plant from seed, just as you would growing tomatoes or chilli's, and enjoying the health benefits / calming / pleasure from thier hard work :-). The problem at the moment is this is illegal, and they could face upto 14 years in Prison! yes sad but true, prison for growing a seed?.

I should state at this point, I know way condone organised criminals growing 100's / 1000's of plants for financial gain, The laws should stick, or be upped greatly for criminals involved in the commercial cultivation of cannabis. This brings me to my next pointer:

 

3. IF THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES NOTHING?

I strongly believe that cannabis smoking is on the rise, this means, that thier is a huge demand for the drug, which in turn is increasing the organised criminals to produce more of the drug, and sell it on our streets for extortionate prices. Often cut with dangerous particles like glass, to make it weigh more, increasing the criminals UN TAXED profits.  This will only get worse! unless the government step in, with a system to allow users to produce or buy  thier own supply, or have designated outlets to buy it, like in other countries i.e Holland. I wont go into this, as its already been more than cover's in other topics.

 

5.CONCLUSION

 

I think the PRO's far way the cons of legalising cannabis under a liscenced scheme for personal / medical growers. This would free up resources, police and courts,  and generate some income to the government to help with our national deficit / debt. Slow down the criminals / drug dealers dramaticly, as the smoker could grow his own, without having to come in contact with the dealers / organised thugs!. saftley in thier own home/greenhouse. We should be looking forward and ahead, not back and behind, lets be honest here, cannabis has NEVER EVER! killed anybody… and i think its MEDICAL uses need to be looked into very very carefully, this is an amazing plant that mother nature has given us.

ABOUT ME

My personal story is i use cannabis for my health with anxiety / panic attacks / depression, and started using the drug after a breakdown, it has helped me a lot, more than any anti-depressents could ever do! to the fact that i no longer suffer like i did for years. and I am now back in work, and leading a normal life, I only smoke once a week believe it or not 🙂 thats all i need to make me feel able to face the week ahead with a smile. 

I am not highly educated, so i appoligise now for my poor wording, and awful spelling lol…

 

Thanks for taking the time reading this, 

if you have anything to add please do

 

 

Allow opening of casinos

The Gambling Act of 2005 allowed for larger "regional" casinos. However, the Daily Mail campaign against them forced a climb down by Gordon Brown, and the money spent by Manchester on the bid was wasted. Prevelance studies have shown that casino gambling is by far the lowest problem gambling area, when compared to betting terminals in bookmakers and online gaming.

 

Why is this idea important?

The Gambling Act of 2005 allowed for larger "regional" casinos. However, the Daily Mail campaign against them forced a climb down by Gordon Brown, and the money spent by Manchester on the bid was wasted. Prevelance studies have shown that casino gambling is by far the lowest problem gambling area, when compared to betting terminals in bookmakers and online gaming.

 

Smoking Bar Licence Scheme

Dear Sir/Madam

A limited number of licences for smoking venues could be introduced, similar in fashion to the licenses premises currently need for music, live entertainment etc.

The licence would need to be fairly costly to discourage widespread use. I believe smokers would be willing to pay the extra premium on their drinks etc in these select venues for the privilege of smoking indoors. The fee would also GENERATE INCOME FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Staff would need to sign a disclaimer saying that they understand the risks to their health and could be compensated with a higher wage.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam

A limited number of licences for smoking venues could be introduced, similar in fashion to the licenses premises currently need for music, live entertainment etc.

The licence would need to be fairly costly to discourage widespread use. I believe smokers would be willing to pay the extra premium on their drinks etc in these select venues for the privilege of smoking indoors. The fee would also GENERATE INCOME FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Staff would need to sign a disclaimer saying that they understand the risks to their health and could be compensated with a higher wage.

REPEAL The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 should be repealed as it stifles freedom of speech, the Act protects people from criticism regardless of how crazy their ideas are, so long as it comes under the banner of a religion. Under this Act if the Nazi's had been a religion then we would not be able to criticise their appalling views and acts towards homosexuals, Jews and so on.

This Act currently protects people who have much the same views from criticism and tries to prosecute anybody who dares to criticise them.The Government protects these people as it is their religion, and therefore protects and promotes completely unacceptable views and ideas.

Why is this idea important?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 should be repealed as it stifles freedom of speech, the Act protects people from criticism regardless of how crazy their ideas are, so long as it comes under the banner of a religion. Under this Act if the Nazi's had been a religion then we would not be able to criticise their appalling views and acts towards homosexuals, Jews and so on.

This Act currently protects people who have much the same views from criticism and tries to prosecute anybody who dares to criticise them.The Government protects these people as it is their religion, and therefore protects and promotes completely unacceptable views and ideas.

Repeal of drug prohibition laws.

Control and regulate the distribution and sale of all recreational drugs. Accept the inevitability of recreational drug use and the failure of prohibition. Make drug use (including nicotine and alcohol) safer for everyone, both the user and society in general.

 

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is overwhelming and unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal? It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

 

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

Why is this idea important?

Control and regulate the distribution and sale of all recreational drugs. Accept the inevitability of recreational drug use and the failure of prohibition. Make drug use (including nicotine and alcohol) safer for everyone, both the user and society in general.

 

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is overwhelming and unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal? It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

 

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

Repeal of drug prohibition laws.

Control and regulate the distribution and sale of all recreational drugs. Accept the inevitability of recreational drug use and the failure of prohibition. Make drug use (including nicotine and alcohol) safer for everyone, both the user and society in general.

 

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is overwhelming and unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal? It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

 

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

Why is this idea important?

Control and regulate the distribution and sale of all recreational drugs. Accept the inevitability of recreational drug use and the failure of prohibition. Make drug use (including nicotine and alcohol) safer for everyone, both the user and society in general.

 

The logic for repealing drug prohibition laws is overwhelming and unassailable. Why are some drugs such as alcohol and nicotine perfectly legal whilst other less harmful drugs, such as cannabis and MDMA, illegal? It makes no sense why so much time, money and effort goes into criminalising people who seek alternative and safer forms of intoxication. It makes no sense why criminal gangs are given a near monopoly on one of the most lucrative industries in the world. It also makes no sense why two of the most toxic drugs, alcohol and nicotine, can be marketed and advertised to children.

 

Drug prohibition makes no sense. Our current form of selective drug prohibition makes even less sense. Educate people honestly about drugs and their various effects and then allow them to make their own decisions. Surely this is a basic and obvious human right.

protecting our tolerant liberal democracy

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.

Why is this idea important?

 

We currently live in a tolerant, liberal western democracy and we need to enshrine the ethos of our State in law in order to protect it from alien/foreign illiberal and intolerant influences. In order to maintain liberties you have to protect them from interference once they are given.

 

The State should be separate from any religion. Secular Human Rights should always 'trump' religious freedoms, 'non-believers' of religions should be protected from interference from religion. In return adherents of religions must be protected by the State from persecution.

 

Rights come with responsibilities to our tolerant, liberal western democracy. A social contract should be created where no individual or section of society can take assistance from the State without giving to the State, allegiance is to the British Nation and continuing it's freedoms. English should be the only language used, in print and spoken communication, by the state and all it's local and national authorities. Hiding ones face in public must be a crime. Refusal to engage in the Social Contract results in removal of voting rights and if applicable a reexamination of whether residence/citizenship is still legitimate. The aim is to stop sections of society from alienating themselves within the mainstream of society and living in cultural ghettos.