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.

PROHIBITION LAWS

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Why is this idea important?

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

totalitarianism and the fall of pseudo democracy

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Why is this idea important?

We live in a society free of many of the ills that infect the wider world. We are lucky enough, for instance to have a national health service, free debate on religion without fear of reprisals, equal rights for women, freedom of expression and equal relationship rights for homosexuals and so on and so forth. It has not always been so. It was illegal untill 1967 for two people of the same gender to have sexual relations, it was illegal untill 1928 for a woman to vote, untill the British monarchy was relegated to head of state and power transfered to government we lived under the oppressive rule of successive theocratic dictators. I make these points to set the tone of change, to highlight the necessity to make difficult desicions for the benefit of society. With this in mind i now have to ask: why do we insist on prohibition? We have watched it fail and done nothing, we have watched our children criminalised by an experimental and relativley new system of oppression and we do nothing to prevent this breathtaking totalitarianism. I am not going to argue the medical benefits of cannabis or the obvious requirement for a legal stimulant (as opposed to the legal deppressant), nor will i argue the evidential safety of many of the drugs classified as prohibited. I will not make these arguements, partially because they have been made time and again by those better qualified than myself, but largely because the science of it is secondary to the fact that it is a basic human right to do whatever one chooses to his/her own body. Do we legislate on tattoos lest the needle be infected? do we ban boxing or extreme sports to prevent injury or death, after all, are they not just chasing a far more risky high? We in society have a duty to educate, to teach those younger than ourselves to think criticaly and to make our own desicions provided they affect only ourselves. I have seen the argument made that drugs should be illegal because they are illegal (or vice versa), besides being a laughable non-sequitur this is held as esteemed argument by a large majority. This attitude is why i started this piece as i did, there was i time when it was illegal to have homosexual relations simply because someone deemed it wrong, there was a time when it was illegal for a woman to vote because someone felt they knew better. I think for me, i speak for me and i live for me, we exist only once and it is OUR right to experiance life as we see fit provided we harm no one else in the process.      

Latest figures for alcohol abuse underline the perverse nature of prohibition

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

Why is this idea important?

Yesterday the BBC News gave the number of hospital admissions due to alcohol. Read it and weep for the state of our so called democratic society:

In 2008/09, 606,799 people were admitted to hospital with drink-related problems. Some were treated more than once, leading to 945,469 total admissions, the Local Alcohol Profiles for England show.

More than 1,500 men and women are admitted to hospital every day because of alcohol, a report reveals.

The figure is 65 per cent higher than only five years ago, while drinking is to blame for around 15,000 deaths a year.

More than 400,000 brawls, burglaries, sexual assaults and other crimes are also fuelled by alcohol each year, the study shows.

Take the “for sale” off our politicians backs!

Every party should not be allowed to recieve donations over £100 per person and the government should pay the rest of the money required for the campaign, but set a reasonable cap on the amount of money they spend.

Why is this idea important?

Every party should not be allowed to recieve donations over £100 per person and the government should pay the rest of the money required for the campaign, but set a reasonable cap on the amount of money they spend.

END CANNABIS PROHIBITION OR JUSTIFY ITS USE

so on the 26 of Jan 2009 Gordon browns government re graded cannabis to a class B drug to send out a message , the message went out and the criminal gangs flocked , they had heard there was big money to be made in the uk again under the unregulated sales of cannabis . most of the former ACMD members warned against this but were ignored , Allen johnson said " a line was  drawn , advisers  advise and politicians have the final say ", the coalition government are following the same anti science based approach of biased prohibition at stretched costs  with no justification of its destructive self serving use

 

for example on the 26 of Jan 2009 brown s government  ignored the science and evidence at the publics cost , from Jan 2009 UK cannabis production doubled , this can be seen in this link :  http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/064a%20UK%20National%20Problem%20Profile%20Cultivation%20of%20Cannabis.pdf

 

its an ACPO report that claims large scale cannabis production is a growing problem , its own scientific graph clearly shows  a spike in cannabis production from Jan 2009 to meet demand ,just what the former advisers warned against ,

this is more clear evidence that prohibition is counter productive at setting out to do what it claims it will , its implemented with the notion it will reduce all drug related harms but in fact it increases  all public harm and costs and like a paradox its  own created harms are used to justify and implement more of itself , more prohibition ,  good unbiased random controlled scientific evidence proves prohibition will never work in a democracy , we also have evidence of this from 1920 America

 

my idea is  to look for a scientific proven way to do everything prohibition claims it will do at reducing overall drug related crime and  harms  for a fraction of the cost and time while restoring public trust and respect without funding major crime nor making the poor  into criminals  through the temptation of easy money and the threat of rough living!

Why is this idea important?

so on the 26 of Jan 2009 Gordon browns government re graded cannabis to a class B drug to send out a message , the message went out and the criminal gangs flocked , they had heard there was big money to be made in the uk again under the unregulated sales of cannabis . most of the former ACMD members warned against this but were ignored , Allen johnson said " a line was  drawn , advisers  advise and politicians have the final say ", the coalition government are following the same anti science based approach of biased prohibition at stretched costs  with no justification of its destructive self serving use

 

for example on the 26 of Jan 2009 brown s government  ignored the science and evidence at the publics cost , from Jan 2009 UK cannabis production doubled , this can be seen in this link :  http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/064a%20UK%20National%20Problem%20Profile%20Cultivation%20of%20Cannabis.pdf

 

its an ACPO report that claims large scale cannabis production is a growing problem , its own scientific graph clearly shows  a spike in cannabis production from Jan 2009 to meet demand ,just what the former advisers warned against ,

this is more clear evidence that prohibition is counter productive at setting out to do what it claims it will , its implemented with the notion it will reduce all drug related harms but in fact it increases  all public harm and costs and like a paradox its  own created harms are used to justify and implement more of itself , more prohibition ,  good unbiased random controlled scientific evidence proves prohibition will never work in a democracy , we also have evidence of this from 1920 America

 

my idea is  to look for a scientific proven way to do everything prohibition claims it will do at reducing overall drug related crime and  harms  for a fraction of the cost and time while restoring public trust and respect without funding major crime nor making the poor  into criminals  through the temptation of easy money and the threat of rough living!

Repeal the law that persicutes over 6,000,000 law-abiding people!

Scrap the current drug possession laws and create a new one "Drug Dealing"

I know the government is supposed to be hard on drugs – but criminalising the end-user is morally wrong.

I have no issue with the police enforcing the law on dealers and commercial growers but….

If someone has a few grams of drugs for personal use and they are over 18 it should be OK. If they are under 18 then it should be confiscated and the matter reported to that person's guardian to deal with.

If someone has one or two cannabis plants growning in their garden or house then so long as they are not dealing then that should be OK too.

 

 

Criminalising someone in this way will just make it worse, if you treat someone like a criminal – they will behave like one.

Criminalising someone will ruin their employment chances and in the current economic climate we should be doing everything we can to facilitate people gaining or retaining jobs.

Criminalising someone costs a lot of money and police time, this would be better spent targeting the dealers, criminals & thugs that make our streets unsafe.

Repeat criminalisation for possession can lead to inprisonment – at this point you might as well have sent the user on a "how to be a real criminal" course as they will learn all the tricks inside.

So change the exsisting law so it specifically applies to commercial dealing and commercial growing and leave the end-user and "percy" grower alone.

This will remove 6.000.000 people from potential contact with the criminal justice system.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the current drug possession laws and create a new one "Drug Dealing"

I know the government is supposed to be hard on drugs – but criminalising the end-user is morally wrong.

I have no issue with the police enforcing the law on dealers and commercial growers but….

If someone has a few grams of drugs for personal use and they are over 18 it should be OK. If they are under 18 then it should be confiscated and the matter reported to that person's guardian to deal with.

If someone has one or two cannabis plants growning in their garden or house then so long as they are not dealing then that should be OK too.

 

 

Criminalising someone in this way will just make it worse, if you treat someone like a criminal – they will behave like one.

Criminalising someone will ruin their employment chances and in the current economic climate we should be doing everything we can to facilitate people gaining or retaining jobs.

Criminalising someone costs a lot of money and police time, this would be better spent targeting the dealers, criminals & thugs that make our streets unsafe.

Repeat criminalisation for possession can lead to inprisonment – at this point you might as well have sent the user on a "how to be a real criminal" course as they will learn all the tricks inside.

So change the exsisting law so it specifically applies to commercial dealing and commercial growing and leave the end-user and "percy" grower alone.

This will remove 6.000.000 people from potential contact with the criminal justice system.

The government should ban all ‘legal highs’ – Radical thoughts….

So the chemists have already created a dozen more powerfull alternatives to M-Kat/Meow-Meow and they are flooding the UK with it.

I think this is a ticking time-bomb. The new ACMD puppet Chairman Professor Les Iverson has already said it was difficult for these to be policed.

He said: "I don't want to get to a situation where I have to go to the home secretary every month and ask for something else to be banned.

"It's a new highly profitable industry. It's a game between the chemical manufacturers who are obviously quite smart chemists, internet dealers and the law."

Critics say banning a substance could cause bigger problems.

Michael Linnell, from the drugs charity Lifeline said: "What we're in danger of is that nobody knows what the law is. You can't just ban your way out of a problem because it could result in far more dangerous chemicals coming onto the market.

"We're now in a situation where people are snorting white powder and they have no idea what it is and the people selling it don't know what it is either."

Most of the legal highs are manufactured in China and imported to the UK where they are sold as "research chemicals" or plant food. Dealers are able to get round the law by making sure they state substances are not for human consumption.

Experts say MDAI, a synthetic chemical that replicates the effects of ecstasy, will be the next legal high to take off.

"People need to realise these are chemicals and not drugs. They've not been tried or tested for human use in any way and nobody has any idea of the health consequences.

"In the short term you could get heart palpitations or even vascular collapse but there is also a risk that in years to come we could discover these have even caused birth defects. That's how dangerous they could be."

While the chemists are still one step ahead of the law, the challenge for the government is how to ban something when you don't know what it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_the_government_ban_lega.html

 

So the mad scientists are in an arms race with the prohibitionists with drugs users as the lab-rats in the middle.

How many of our children are going to be poisened by this chemical warfare – we may never know (it could be years for the effects to show up).

We all remember Thamidalide (even if I can't spell it) and that was supposed to be a tested drug – these are virtually untested.  Its like playing russian roulette but with plant food.

The goverment cannot keep increasing the "Banned drugs" list as it makes the misuse of drugs act even less credible than it is already…..

So here is my proposal…..

 

If a drug has not been tested then it should be placed in a "Under investigation" status and its sale should be prohibited – Personal possession should not be a crime.

If independent scientists can prove it is less dangerous than alcohol then it can be licensed for sale at chemists or licensed premises (with warnings & age restrictuions).

If there are subsiquent issues with addiction rates then it can be classified in the normal way.

However this is where my suggestion differes from the prohibitionist view.

 

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK – IT REMOVES GOVERMENT CONTROL AND GIFTS IT TO ORGANISED CRIME.

You only need to look at alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920's to see that, except gangsters with tommy-guns have been replaced by inner city gangs with knives, Chinese chemical scientists,  oriental drug gangs with guns & slaves trafficked in to tend the crops . 

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT THEN.

If the real drugs were available legally then there would be no need for "legal highs" – Instantly you kill the "Legal highs" market overnight.

 

I don't mean a free for all, but a highly regulated legal framework.

There are plenty of scientific papers listing the harms of drugs (Heroin is always at the top, Alcohol in the middle and cannabis near the bottom).

So if they were all available with regulation rather than "banned" then the market would be in the  hands of responsible goverment scientists, the profits would be going to the state and the drug gangs & criminals will be out of work.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CALL A RESULT.

Why is this idea important?

So the chemists have already created a dozen more powerfull alternatives to M-Kat/Meow-Meow and they are flooding the UK with it.

I think this is a ticking time-bomb. The new ACMD puppet Chairman Professor Les Iverson has already said it was difficult for these to be policed.

He said: "I don't want to get to a situation where I have to go to the home secretary every month and ask for something else to be banned.

"It's a new highly profitable industry. It's a game between the chemical manufacturers who are obviously quite smart chemists, internet dealers and the law."

Critics say banning a substance could cause bigger problems.

Michael Linnell, from the drugs charity Lifeline said: "What we're in danger of is that nobody knows what the law is. You can't just ban your way out of a problem because it could result in far more dangerous chemicals coming onto the market.

"We're now in a situation where people are snorting white powder and they have no idea what it is and the people selling it don't know what it is either."

Most of the legal highs are manufactured in China and imported to the UK where they are sold as "research chemicals" or plant food. Dealers are able to get round the law by making sure they state substances are not for human consumption.

Experts say MDAI, a synthetic chemical that replicates the effects of ecstasy, will be the next legal high to take off.

"People need to realise these are chemicals and not drugs. They've not been tried or tested for human use in any way and nobody has any idea of the health consequences.

"In the short term you could get heart palpitations or even vascular collapse but there is also a risk that in years to come we could discover these have even caused birth defects. That's how dangerous they could be."

While the chemists are still one step ahead of the law, the challenge for the government is how to ban something when you don't know what it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_the_government_ban_lega.html

 

So the mad scientists are in an arms race with the prohibitionists with drugs users as the lab-rats in the middle.

How many of our children are going to be poisened by this chemical warfare – we may never know (it could be years for the effects to show up).

We all remember Thamidalide (even if I can't spell it) and that was supposed to be a tested drug – these are virtually untested.  Its like playing russian roulette but with plant food.

The goverment cannot keep increasing the "Banned drugs" list as it makes the misuse of drugs act even less credible than it is already…..

So here is my proposal…..

 

If a drug has not been tested then it should be placed in a "Under investigation" status and its sale should be prohibited – Personal possession should not be a crime.

If independent scientists can prove it is less dangerous than alcohol then it can be licensed for sale at chemists or licensed premises (with warnings & age restrictuions).

If there are subsiquent issues with addiction rates then it can be classified in the normal way.

However this is where my suggestion differes from the prohibitionist view.

 

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK – IT REMOVES GOVERMENT CONTROL AND GIFTS IT TO ORGANISED CRIME.

You only need to look at alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920's to see that, except gangsters with tommy-guns have been replaced by inner city gangs with knives, Chinese chemical scientists,  oriental drug gangs with guns & slaves trafficked in to tend the crops . 

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT THEN.

If the real drugs were available legally then there would be no need for "legal highs" – Instantly you kill the "Legal highs" market overnight.

 

I don't mean a free for all, but a highly regulated legal framework.

There are plenty of scientific papers listing the harms of drugs (Heroin is always at the top, Alcohol in the middle and cannabis near the bottom).

So if they were all available with regulation rather than "banned" then the market would be in the  hands of responsible goverment scientists, the profits would be going to the state and the drug gangs & criminals will be out of work.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CALL A RESULT.

Legal Highs; Another Reason Prohibition Has Failed; News From Today

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Why is this idea important?

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Repeal The Lie’s & Deceit Of Generations Of Prohibition

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

Why is this idea important?

After more than half a century of lies and deceit regarding cannabis and the reasons put forward for prohibition by successive governments in order to uphold the lie, the British public are wising up to the whitewash.

We will no longer accept the government's explanation of the merits of prohibition, neither will we continue to be lead astray by such pervasive deceitful policy.

The British public are far in advance of the government on the issue of the "War On Drugs", we have long acknowledged that the fundamental policy is corrupt and utterly unjust, unworkable and morally defunct.

It is now time for the government to repeal all such policies of openly lying to its electorate. It is time for the Government to play catch up with the public whim.

I demand that the government explain to the public why they have felt the need to deceive us for generations and why they have unjustly, immorally and unethically imprisoned so many citizens under trumped up charges that never made any rational sense. I demand to know why they continue to believe that it is right or correct to ruin some body's life for the act of consuming a substance that is of no consequence to anybody but themselves. Lastly, I am sure that I am not alone in also demanding that the Government come clean regarding the entire issue of prohibition and issue a deep and heartfelt apology to the public for creating and continuing to advocate possibly the second greatest deceitful  lie in human history.

REPEAL the governments ability to lie to their electorate by adopting rigid scientific and empirically lead independent bodies that can assess all comments made by government and analyse their factual content without interference from state.

Video’s in support of legalisation of cannabis and drugs.

The idea here is to give people easy access to some video's that are based in scientific fact and public opinion. Please view the video's in order to better acquaint yourself with the facts of the issue at hand:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9077214414651731007&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The idea here is to give people easy access to some video's that are based in scientific fact and public opinion. Please view the video's in order to better acquaint yourself with the facts of the issue at hand:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/91y9KqvVggY&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9077214414651731007&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

 

 

 

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.

Support Professor David Nutt: We want an evidence based drugs policy

put profesor David Nutt and his indipendent group the ISCD ( http://www.drugscience.org.uk/ ) back in the helm and reconise the counter measures of prohibition

Why is this idea important?

put profesor David Nutt and his indipendent group the ISCD ( http://www.drugscience.org.uk/ ) back in the helm and reconise the counter measures of prohibition

Ban alcohol – like all other drugs

Alcohol is a deadly drug, killing more people per year than ecstasy, crack cocaine and heroin combined. 

Drug prohibition can't be effective without including one of the deadliest substances known to mankind. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Alcohol is a deadly drug, killing more people per year than ecstasy, crack cocaine and heroin combined. 

Drug prohibition can't be effective without including one of the deadliest substances known to mankind. 

 

Remove the needless prohibition on drugs.

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the prohibition on drugs, this would allow for the government to quality control as well as make sure it doesn’t become easily available to children.

 

I don't know exactly how much it costs to search and penalise drug users and dealers, the figures I found estimate it to be around £500million per year.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/09/03/fresh-thinking-on-the-war-on-drugs/

 

The people arrested would then need to be imprisoned, this can add to the annual cost of the prison services as well as contribute towards prisons becoming overcrowded. Fewer prisons would need to be made, this saving further money for the country and more space available for homes/buildings.

 

Like alcohol it would need to be regulated and only licenced premises would be entitled to sell the product, depending on the drug to how much can be sold to an individual during a time period. Like alcohol, if the supplier feels that the person has bought too much for his own health then they would politely refuse the sale. Also like paracetamol, there can be restrictions on the amount purchased in one sale.

 

The prohibition helps to artificially inflate the price of the product; this can help fund illegal activities due to the profit that comes with products being sold in the 'black market'.

Without the prohibition the price of the product could be reduced, the reduction of the price would result in lower profits for the 'black market traders', thus removing a lot of traders who use it purely for a 'cash crop'.

 

As previously mentioned, the quality control can be implemented so that drugs would be less dangerous due to harmful substances included to pack out the weight.

Due to it being sold via legal regulated methods, the sales person should check to make sure it does not get into the hands of minors who are going through physiological maturity.

 

This would also fit into the scheme of more freedom for the individual who can purchase the product legally to consume; it should be only 'adults' who can purchase it and adults should be allowed the freedom to choose what they like to do to their own bodies.

 

If it was also legalised there can be tax added onto the product, this can equate to a very large figure annually.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-high-tech-success-against-soft-drugs

The site makes reference to 'soft drugs' being sold in Holland making an annual profit of 2 billion euros; this can be increased in the UK by including a larger scale of drugs, including 'hard drugs'.

 

We would need expert advice on how to distribute the products so it is easily available but not in open view of minors who can be easily persuaded by peer pressure.

 

The production of these products would also need to be regulated like current pharmasies regulate current legal drugs, which would include health warnings and guidelines of usage. Also the health and safty of the work place (place of production) would also ensure the safty of equipment used, reducing further risk to people not involved.

 

Due to a possable increase in health cost, part of the the profit from these products can go towards the medical care. This can also include help and advise on how to give up the addiction, like smokers can get help from there local GP.

Pro or Anti Cannabis Leagalisation, All Should Watch, ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE A POLITICIAN

I'm putting this link here as it represents an informed opinion on the subject and details at length the history of prohibition, it's effects economically and in society, it's medicinal values and other extremely informative matters relating to the question, "should we legalise cannabis?".

If you are anti legalisation, then this video will inform you of the other side of the coin while still respecting your opinions and whether you agree with the video or not, you'll end up better qualified to speak about the subject.

If you're pro legalisation then this video is a real eye opener and makes it much easier to understand the fight that you really have on your hands and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Enjoy before it's moderated on!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

Why is this idea important?

I'm putting this link here as it represents an informed opinion on the subject and details at length the history of prohibition, it's effects economically and in society, it's medicinal values and other extremely informative matters relating to the question, "should we legalise cannabis?".

If you are anti legalisation, then this video will inform you of the other side of the coin while still respecting your opinions and whether you agree with the video or not, you'll end up better qualified to speak about the subject.

If you're pro legalisation then this video is a real eye opener and makes it much easier to understand the fight that you really have on your hands and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Enjoy before it's moderated on!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

Review of Prohibition

Just two things:–

1. The prohibition of drugs has been a complete failure and actually causes more damage.

2. We need to review all drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, legal highs and illegal use of prescription-only medicines, on a level playing field with no preconceptions.

I would expect our liberal (?) government to set up a review as soon as possible with a view to making recommendations on a comprehensive reform of legislation on drug use and supply.  But perhaps they are too conservative(?) for this?

Think of the extra tax revenue we could raise during the recession!

Why is this idea important?

Just two things:–

1. The prohibition of drugs has been a complete failure and actually causes more damage.

2. We need to review all drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, legal highs and illegal use of prescription-only medicines, on a level playing field with no preconceptions.

I would expect our liberal (?) government to set up a review as soon as possible with a view to making recommendations on a comprehensive reform of legislation on drug use and supply.  But perhaps they are too conservative(?) for this?

Think of the extra tax revenue we could raise during the recession!

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.

End the failed war on drugs, new approach is needed

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

Why is this idea important?

Prohibition has failed, as shown in studies (http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking10/CAN_Drug_Crime_Crackdown.html) harder laws on drugs do not decrease supply, demand or violence, on the contrary they may cause an increase in gang violence. Street drugs are unregulated with regards to contents and billions of pounds are being poured into criminal gangs while the taxpayer has to pay the bill for failed government prohibition policies.
What is required is an end to red-top hysteria and political point scoring and an objective, scientific approach to drug policy.

How to generate massive tax revenues while significantly reducing crime and its associated cost?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Why is this idea important?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Decriminalisation of all substances.

It is time we realise that the War on Drugs is not only unwinnable, but is at its core incredibly immoral by providing massive amounts of profit for organised criminality and turning in many cases otherwise law abiding, tax paying and fully fuctioning members of society into criminals.

Why is this idea important?

It is time we realise that the War on Drugs is not only unwinnable, but is at its core incredibly immoral by providing massive amounts of profit for organised criminality and turning in many cases otherwise law abiding, tax paying and fully fuctioning members of society into criminals.

Decriminalisation of all substances.

It is time we realise that the War on Drugs is not only unwinnable, but is at its core incredibly immoral by providing massive amounts of profit for organised criminality and turning in many cases otherwise law abiding, tax paying and fully fuctioning members of society into criminals.

Why is this idea important?

It is time we realise that the War on Drugs is not only unwinnable, but is at its core incredibly immoral by providing massive amounts of profit for organised criminality and turning in many cases otherwise law abiding, tax paying and fully fuctioning members of society into criminals.

Property rights to Substances returned

I propose that as educated adults we should be given the liberty to choose what we want to put into our bodies. As opposed to the Hypocrisy of the current drugs laws(where one is only permitted to consume alcohol and tobacco), I propose that the role of the state be of education,harm minimisation and regulation. Prohibition achieves nothing other than letting criminal gangs gain huge profits and be in control of the prohibited substances. Instead of ploughing millions of pounds into battling the criminal gangs who trade in these substances we should instead put this money into education, allowing people to become fully informed as to the dangers of substance use and abuse. The state should thus regulate the substances, ensuring they are as safe as can be to consume(many dangers of substance use result from the drug being illegal/contaminated) and the billions of pounds of tax generated can be put into education and the healthcare system;the latter in order to ensure that the minority of drug users who have problems with their use are given full support and help with stopping.The police can direct all their attention to real criminals rather than wasting vital time on drug users. Furthermore, the pressure on already overcrowded and costly prisons will be eased. Although there are multitude of benefits from regulating and controlling drug, at the heart of the issue is the fact that we own our own bodies and that how we treat our own body is an individuals right. The role of the government should not be to control what we do to our bodies but rather to educate, minimise harm and prevent people from harming others. 

Why is this idea important?

I propose that as educated adults we should be given the liberty to choose what we want to put into our bodies. As opposed to the Hypocrisy of the current drugs laws(where one is only permitted to consume alcohol and tobacco), I propose that the role of the state be of education,harm minimisation and regulation. Prohibition achieves nothing other than letting criminal gangs gain huge profits and be in control of the prohibited substances. Instead of ploughing millions of pounds into battling the criminal gangs who trade in these substances we should instead put this money into education, allowing people to become fully informed as to the dangers of substance use and abuse. The state should thus regulate the substances, ensuring they are as safe as can be to consume(many dangers of substance use result from the drug being illegal/contaminated) and the billions of pounds of tax generated can be put into education and the healthcare system;the latter in order to ensure that the minority of drug users who have problems with their use are given full support and help with stopping.The police can direct all their attention to real criminals rather than wasting vital time on drug users. Furthermore, the pressure on already overcrowded and costly prisons will be eased. Although there are multitude of benefits from regulating and controlling drug, at the heart of the issue is the fact that we own our own bodies and that how we treat our own body is an individuals right. The role of the government should not be to control what we do to our bodies but rather to educate, minimise harm and prevent people from harming others. 

A legalisation of ALL narcotic substances taken for personal use

A legalisation of all consumable substances taken for personal use, the establishment of regulation and taxation to this substances. The establishment of an agency to educate the general public of guidelines, dangers and ramifications of taking these substances. A large portion of taxation profits to be fed directly into rehabilitation and education programs.

Why is this idea important?

A legalisation of all consumable substances taken for personal use, the establishment of regulation and taxation to this substances. The establishment of an agency to educate the general public of guidelines, dangers and ramifications of taking these substances. A large portion of taxation profits to be fed directly into rehabilitation and education programs.