Enlarge the small print that no-one can read

 

Make it illegal for manufacturers to list their ingredients and instructions in ultra small print that even people with optimum vision cannot read.

Print on packaging has become smaller and smaller over the years so that now it is quite often little more than an unintelligible fuzz.

For people who have to avoid certain ingredients and additives due to personal choice, dietary requirements etc it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the important information they need when the print is far too small.

I feel that is every citizen's right to know what they are purchasing, and think this is an issue of civil liberty because we all need to have the freedom of choice to find out what is in the item we are buying and we need to know how to safely follow the instructions on a product and be able to see those instructions clearly, but it is often impossible to even see the relevant information one needs. 

Please introduce a minimum standard size on how small the small print can be. 

Why is this idea important?

 

Make it illegal for manufacturers to list their ingredients and instructions in ultra small print that even people with optimum vision cannot read.

Print on packaging has become smaller and smaller over the years so that now it is quite often little more than an unintelligible fuzz.

For people who have to avoid certain ingredients and additives due to personal choice, dietary requirements etc it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the important information they need when the print is far too small.

I feel that is every citizen's right to know what they are purchasing, and think this is an issue of civil liberty because we all need to have the freedom of choice to find out what is in the item we are buying and we need to know how to safely follow the instructions on a product and be able to see those instructions clearly, but it is often impossible to even see the relevant information one needs. 

Please introduce a minimum standard size on how small the small print can be. 

abolish dogs

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Why is this idea important?

Increase the dog licence to £500 per animal, and sanction corporal punishment for owners who allow their animals to foul the pavement. Any dog that does so should be put down.

Declaring smoking bans, as Toxic risk factors

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Smoking Ban has not gone far enough

The smoking ban may have taken smoke out of peoples faces in many public places, however, there is still a great level of people smoking on the streets and other similar high traffic areas. I feel it should be banned in these places where people who choose not to smoke are subject to inhaling it. Civil liberties are important; for both smokers and non-smokers. Non-smokers should have the right to not have to inhale smoke anywhere, and smokers should have the right to smoke in their own homes and designated areas.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban may have taken smoke out of peoples faces in many public places, however, there is still a great level of people smoking on the streets and other similar high traffic areas. I feel it should be banned in these places where people who choose not to smoke are subject to inhaling it. Civil liberties are important; for both smokers and non-smokers. Non-smokers should have the right to not have to inhale smoke anywhere, and smokers should have the right to smoke in their own homes and designated areas.

Re-instate Cannabis BPC as a licensed medicine!

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Why is this idea important?

In 1970, Cannabis BPC tincture was a licensed medicine in the UK.

No discernible benefit has come from its withdrawal. No- one danced in the street when it went.

A great many of the diseases which non- psychoactive cannabinoids have potential threapeutic use have risen sharply since 1970. For no benefit, a great cost has been incurred in human suffering.

To give one example only, the cannabinoid delta9-THCV,  is effective in reducing appetite in mice. We have a problem with obesity, which contues to escalate.

Those who approve of prohibition, endorse the denial of something that could help the obese.

Devolve funding of all drugs work to GPs

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Why is this idea important?

At present, the Department of Health holds the budget for Drug Action Teams, and ring- fences it for work with users of "controlled" drugs.

The result is an inequality of healthcare provision. A problem user of "controlled" drugs has a 1 in 2 chance of getting medical help, but the chance for an alcoholic is ten times worse.

 Once again, we can clearly see the political prejudices against "controlled" drugs working against the interests of public health. 1 in 13 UK adults is alcohol- dependent. This is a very seious problem for a very large number of people.

As Andrew Lansley devolves commissioning of services to GPs, he should include in this full responsibility for all the work Drug Action Teams currently do. So that the money can finally be dedicated accordfing to clinical need, not political prejudice.

 

Make public health the only priority in setting drugs classifications.

 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was meant to reduce the harms caused by drug use. But the way it has been implemented has failed this purpose, as drugs harms have increased consistently over its forty-year history.

 For no apparent reason, two of the most harmful drugs- alcohol and tobacco, have been exempted from classification. And in recent years, the harms caused by alcohol in particular have increased dramatically. (This drug is now estimated to be costing the UK economy £55 billion per year, as well as at least 20,000 annual avoidable deaths. )

 The first duty of any Government is to protect its people from harm. If there is any other priority in setting drugs classifications than the protection of the public, this is the worst possible betrayal of the people the Government is there to serve.

The last Home Secretary admitted that he did this without apparent shame. He put "other factors" before your health and mine. This is utterly unacceptable. Our lives are not his to play politics with.

Why is this idea important?

 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was meant to reduce the harms caused by drug use. But the way it has been implemented has failed this purpose, as drugs harms have increased consistently over its forty-year history.

 For no apparent reason, two of the most harmful drugs- alcohol and tobacco, have been exempted from classification. And in recent years, the harms caused by alcohol in particular have increased dramatically. (This drug is now estimated to be costing the UK economy £55 billion per year, as well as at least 20,000 annual avoidable deaths. )

 The first duty of any Government is to protect its people from harm. If there is any other priority in setting drugs classifications than the protection of the public, this is the worst possible betrayal of the people the Government is there to serve.

The last Home Secretary admitted that he did this without apparent shame. He put "other factors" before your health and mine. This is utterly unacceptable. Our lives are not his to play politics with.

no horse power!

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

Why is this idea important?

i think horses should be banned from the road because they provide a hazzard for other drivers  because everyones expected to overtake realy wide and slowly a road has cars on it if a horse doesnt like cars and fast moving vehicles it shouldnt be on it! and none of the manure is ever picked up from the road afterwars potencialy causing a hazzard for motor cycles

NHS Public Health

Scrap Public Health function in PCTs. They are overpaid and ineffectual.

The money would be better spend on improvements to the parlous state of sewage disposal

The Swine flu hysteria was a classic case of public health hysteria

Why is this idea important?

Scrap Public Health function in PCTs. They are overpaid and ineffectual.

The money would be better spend on improvements to the parlous state of sewage disposal

The Swine flu hysteria was a classic case of public health hysteria

Repeal of Water Fluoridation Legislation

As a previous correspondent noted it is illegal to dump fluoride into rivers, the sea or landfill sites.  In this context it is interesting to note a statement made in 1983 by Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water of the US Environmental Protection Agency that, "in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long-standing problem.  By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."

It would seem therefore that pro-fluoridating authorities have been happy so solve a pollution problem by diluting the offending industrial waste in public water supplies for decades. 

Why is this idea important?

As a previous correspondent noted it is illegal to dump fluoride into rivers, the sea or landfill sites.  In this context it is interesting to note a statement made in 1983 by Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water of the US Environmental Protection Agency that, "in regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal solution to a long-standing problem.  By recovering byproduct fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."

It would seem therefore that pro-fluoridating authorities have been happy so solve a pollution problem by diluting the offending industrial waste in public water supplies for decades. 

Repeal the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

Why is this idea important?

I, like most people, want to minimise the harm caused by drugs to individuals, communities, society and the world.

I am not suggesting legalisation as commercial corporations have shown they are irresponsible making money at the expense of public health. Rather I suggest drugs be decriminalised to allow the people who choose to use it to be able to get it at a fair price with tax to cover the potential problems built into it. Drugs should not be marketed or advertised but adults should be free to make informed choices.

Is it paranoid to suggest that a vulnerable stigmatised group provides a convenient enemy for people in power?

It is up to us, the people to see through this process where the media misreport and antagonise and politicians feel they have to be seen to respond with ill thought out kneejerk responses. Those in any real power consider it political suicide to allow an evidence-based debate and therefore be seen as being soft on drugs. Our current PM was a member of the committee which said "We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma".

All I ask is to carry this through rather than focussing only on retaining power.

Relax the Animal Byproduct Regulations

Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) 2005 – deal with animal by-products, including the waste disposal industry, the animal feed industry, slaughterhouse operators, tanneries, farmers, food manufacturing premises, catering outlets, food retailers and zoos are affected by the ABPR. The legislation causes a major barrier to community groups who want to start their own community composting scheme, as such it means multinational giant foreign firms come in and monopolise the composting industry with high tech solutions which require the waste to be collected and hauled vast distances in deisel fueled vehicles at public expense, most of this waste could be dealt with on small scale local compost heaps on parks, gardens, allotments, farms etc, but there is so much environmental and safety regulations in the way despite composting being inherantly a simple and low risk activity which helps create nice soil improver for free and reduces organic waste thus helping save the planet.  

 

speak to defra and the community composting association they will vouch for this!

Why is this idea important?

Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) 2005 – deal with animal by-products, including the waste disposal industry, the animal feed industry, slaughterhouse operators, tanneries, farmers, food manufacturing premises, catering outlets, food retailers and zoos are affected by the ABPR. The legislation causes a major barrier to community groups who want to start their own community composting scheme, as such it means multinational giant foreign firms come in and monopolise the composting industry with high tech solutions which require the waste to be collected and hauled vast distances in deisel fueled vehicles at public expense, most of this waste could be dealt with on small scale local compost heaps on parks, gardens, allotments, farms etc, but there is so much environmental and safety regulations in the way despite composting being inherantly a simple and low risk activity which helps create nice soil improver for free and reduces organic waste thus helping save the planet.  

 

speak to defra and the community composting association they will vouch for this!