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.

Repeal Harris vs DPP (1993) and allow the carry of locking, folding penknives without a specific reason

Since 1993 it has been illegal to carry a safe locking, folding penknife due to a highly unjust piece of case law. This causes confusion amongst the general public and prevents ordinary, law-abiding people from carrying a safe, everyday tool. I would repeal Harris vs DPP 1993 and amend section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) to specifically allow both locking and non-locking folding penknives with a blade that has a cutting edge not exceeding 3-inches in length.

Why is this idea important?

Since 1993 it has been illegal to carry a safe locking, folding penknife due to a highly unjust piece of case law. This causes confusion amongst the general public and prevents ordinary, law-abiding people from carrying a safe, everyday tool. I would repeal Harris vs DPP 1993 and amend section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) to specifically allow both locking and non-locking folding penknives with a blade that has a cutting edge not exceeding 3-inches in length.

Personal Responsibility

Our country is made a mockery of because many in the Establishment no longer think people can think for themselves; and therefore no one is responsible for their own actions.

If some breaks into your home in then you should have every right to defend it by any necessary means; and if someone breaks into a property and hurts themselves they should not ba able to sue the owner.

If you KNOW the law states the above then it is THEIR decision to enter the property and it is THEIR decision to take the concequences. 

Secondly is someone is a foreign national, who comes from a country that they may be tortured in, then if they commit a crime they should be deported – why?

Because if they KNOW the law then it is THEIR decision to comit the crime and THEIR decision to face the concequence.

Likewise when there is an icy path or road, people can decide whether or not to walk on the ice and risk falling over. Where it is someones choice to walk over ice they should not be allowed to sue. This same issue of personal responsibility can be applied across several other areas too.

Why is this idea important?

Our country is made a mockery of because many in the Establishment no longer think people can think for themselves; and therefore no one is responsible for their own actions.

If some breaks into your home in then you should have every right to defend it by any necessary means; and if someone breaks into a property and hurts themselves they should not ba able to sue the owner.

If you KNOW the law states the above then it is THEIR decision to enter the property and it is THEIR decision to take the concequences. 

Secondly is someone is a foreign national, who comes from a country that they may be tortured in, then if they commit a crime they should be deported – why?

Because if they KNOW the law then it is THEIR decision to comit the crime and THEIR decision to face the concequence.

Likewise when there is an icy path or road, people can decide whether or not to walk on the ice and risk falling over. Where it is someones choice to walk over ice they should not be allowed to sue. This same issue of personal responsibility can be applied across several other areas too.

Health and Safety legislation versus loss of fun

Heath and Safety laws are generally good, despite the public perception, and have delivered an enormous reduction in accidents. But it’s a question of balance. On the one hand we don’t want accidents, on the other we don’t want to be killjoys. We have reached the point at which any drive for a further reduction in accidents may lead to too much restriction on activities which could go ahead as long as the participants agree to take the risks.

The problem is in the Law where the official test is the risk being “As Low As Reasonably Practicable.” So things are banned or modified for safety reasons no matter what the consequences are to loss of “fun” because a Court deems that it is practicable (cost effective) to reduce the risk. So this test needs so be replaced by “as low as reasonably possible until cost or loss of amenity, etc. outweigh the reduction in risk”.

How this would actually be interpreted in a Court of Law is difficult to foresee as how do you assess loss of amenity against improvement in safety?

Also people should be allowed to waive their right to comeback if they are prepared to take the risk with eyes open.

Why is this idea important?

Heath and Safety laws are generally good, despite the public perception, and have delivered an enormous reduction in accidents. But it’s a question of balance. On the one hand we don’t want accidents, on the other we don’t want to be killjoys. We have reached the point at which any drive for a further reduction in accidents may lead to too much restriction on activities which could go ahead as long as the participants agree to take the risks.

The problem is in the Law where the official test is the risk being “As Low As Reasonably Practicable.” So things are banned or modified for safety reasons no matter what the consequences are to loss of “fun” because a Court deems that it is practicable (cost effective) to reduce the risk. So this test needs so be replaced by “as low as reasonably possible until cost or loss of amenity, etc. outweigh the reduction in risk”.

How this would actually be interpreted in a Court of Law is difficult to foresee as how do you assess loss of amenity against improvement in safety?

Also people should be allowed to waive their right to comeback if they are prepared to take the risk with eyes open.

Change the presumption of risk applied to everyday items

Would it be possible for the courts to assume that everyday household objects, such as kettles or screwdrivers, are not dangerous to any reasonable adult as long as they are kept in good working order? Things that any intelligent person already knows how to use should not give rise to lawsuits.

 

I am not a lawyer and I do realise this would be complicated to carry out…..!

Why is this idea important?

Would it be possible for the courts to assume that everyday household objects, such as kettles or screwdrivers, are not dangerous to any reasonable adult as long as they are kept in good working order? Things that any intelligent person already knows how to use should not give rise to lawsuits.

 

I am not a lawyer and I do realise this would be complicated to carry out…..!