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.
The law on fireworks seems unnecessarily restrictive and should be relaxed. Fireworks should be able to be sold year around and restrictions on things like loudness removed.
Why is this idea important?
The law on fireworks seems unnecessarily restrictive and should be relaxed. Fireworks should be able to be sold year around and restrictions on things like loudness removed.
At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.
An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.
If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.
Why is this idea important?
At the moment there are a lot of restrictions as to what the owner of a listed building can do to their property.
An Englishman's (or a Scotsman…) home is his castle and owners of listed buildings should be just as entitled as any house owner to make modifications to their house.
If the house is primarily used as a dwelling then it should have no more restrictions on it than a 'normal' house.
At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:
-
Plastic
-
Paper
-
Glass
-
Food/drink cans
-
Cardboard
-
Green waste (in a separate bin)
This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week. We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.
We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council. This council only collected the following items:
-
Paper
-
Glass
-
Food/drink cans
-
Green waste (in a separate bin)
This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight. I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment). I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns. Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.
After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy? And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?
Why is this idea important?
At my previous house, the local council would recycle (at the curbside collection scheme) the following items:
-
Plastic
-
Paper
-
Glass
-
Food/drink cans
-
Cardboard
-
Green waste (in a separate bin)
This resulted in my household only 'throwing out' a black bin liner that was around half full every week. We took things like light bulbs and remote control batteries (etc.) down the local tip when we had enough to justify a journey. Things like old clothing (etc.) was sent to the local charity shop.
We moved house last year, and even though the move was only a few miles, we came under a different council. This council only collected the following items:
-
Paper
-
Glass
-
Food/drink cans
-
Green waste (in a separate bin)
This resulted in the amount that we disposed of increased almost overnight. I also sold my car (as we were closer to better public transport links), so I thought that I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to the tip on my bike (get some exercise and do something good for the environment). I was told that they only allowed vehicles into the tip (bikes don’t count) due to ‘health and safety’ concerns. Now I know that the amount that I can carry on a bike is only small, but it was more to do with doing a little, rather than nothing at all.
After speaking to colleagues at work, I found that some people can recycle all of the above, others only some of the above and some can recycle all of the above AND cooked/uncooked food waste. I do find it strange that in this day and age, the amount that we can recycle varies depending upon where you live, surely it must cost more for each council to have an individual policy on curbside collection, rather than a national strategy / policy? And why is it that there are no facilities to recycle plastic drink bottles (for example) on the high street?
Repeal all money laundering regulations which treat inherently legal actions as suspicious and requiring checks or proof of legality or reporting to the State.
Why is this idea important?
Repeal all money laundering regulations which treat inherently legal actions as suspicious and requiring checks or proof of legality or reporting to the State.
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
Why is this idea important?
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
This proposal is to help prevent basic Directives, issued by the European Parliament from being "gold-plated", added to and used by British politicians as a surreptitious means of passing legislation into UK law without due Parliamentary debate and passage into law.
Why is this idea important?
This proposal is to help prevent basic Directives, issued by the European Parliament from being "gold-plated", added to and used by British politicians as a surreptitious means of passing legislation into UK law without due Parliamentary debate and passage into law.
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Why is this idea important?
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
Why is this idea important?
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?
Why is this idea important?
Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Why is this idea important?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.
Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.
The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.
Why is this idea important?
Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.
Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.
The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
Why is this idea important?
Firstly, pull out of the EU. This monster is slowly but surely eroding our rights and liberties at home while ensuring business is more difficult to sustain than ever before. The public want to be governed at a local level where politicians can see what needs to be done and effect it, not at an international "one-size-fits-all" level. All the unnecessary and restrictive red tape and over-regulation that brussels keeps pouring out is doing us only harm. For example, recently sodium chlorate weedkiller was banned. I'm sure this came about because of what looked like a good idea on paper, but in reality the only effect of this decision is that the public have to break their backs trying to manually pull weeds out of their gardens. I say rid us of this beast not only because of this, but also because it is taking more money off us than has been ring-fenced for the foreign aid budget. A large portion of the planned spending cuts could be scrapped by simply ditching the masses of dead weight helpfully being generously provided to us by the EU. Note the sarcasm.
And speaking of the foreign aid budget, get rid of that, effective from yesterday! Just throwing money at other countries that often don't need it (example india with its own space programme and new multi-million-pound airports) is a waste of our hard-earned cash that we need to keep for ourselves, so it just beggars belief that "foreign aid" is the only budget that isn't going to be cut – and is possibly even to be increased!
Free haandouts don't stop there though. Immigrants of all sorts get thousands in benefits each week that they don't need – and even the ones that do find their own work take the opportunity away from brits that deserve it! There simply isn't enough money or space and there aren't enough jobs or houses for the british people as it is, let alone giving all sorts leave to roam our space and squat in our sheds. I call for an immediate halt to all immigration and start to a scheme of assisted repatriation for those who want to go home. That is the only way we will get rid of the excess population that is causing our once-great nation so much distress. And finally, stop racism! And I don't mean your sort of "racism", I mean the real discrimination that is happening against white British men all the time. The sort of racism that you lot seem to support and enjoy!
Why cant Cable TV providers share BT ducting or even sewers or lay cables next to water supply mains pipes? Soon the Analog TV is to be phased out and Millions of homes with no cables have to go for unsightly Dishes and Ariels and lining the pockets of one main Satelite broadcaster.
Surely makes sense to make it law to share underground ducting which were layed at the cost of Tax payers in the days of Public ownership.
Why is this idea important?
Why cant Cable TV providers share BT ducting or even sewers or lay cables next to water supply mains pipes? Soon the Analog TV is to be phased out and Millions of homes with no cables have to go for unsightly Dishes and Ariels and lining the pockets of one main Satelite broadcaster.
Surely makes sense to make it law to share underground ducting which were layed at the cost of Tax payers in the days of Public ownership.
Prison Service Order 5000 (former prison catering manual) is a long & often updated set of regulations about Prison food. It's one of a the prison service orders online as word documents.
I'd delete this rule 2.14/13 – the table – or add a note that meat substitutes like Quorn are OK. I'm not trying to propose worse food for prisonsers, and the rest of rule 2.14 could stay. It says the same thing in a more up to date and flexible way, suggesting nutricious and varied food. There are other parts of the document about what that means in detail.
|
Food Group
|
Minimum Frequency
|
|
Meat
|
Daily
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables
|
5 portions per day
|
|
Poultry
|
Twice per week
|
|
Fish
|
Twice per week (One of which should be oily)
|
|
Supplementary Snack
|
Per evening
|
Why is this idea important?
Prison Service Order 5000 (former prison catering manual) is a long & often updated set of regulations about Prison food. It's one of a the prison service orders online as word documents.
I'd delete this rule 2.14/13 – the table – or add a note that meat substitutes like Quorn are OK. I'm not trying to propose worse food for prisonsers, and the rest of rule 2.14 could stay. It says the same thing in a more up to date and flexible way, suggesting nutricious and varied food. There are other parts of the document about what that means in detail.
|
Food Group
|
Minimum Frequency
|
|
Meat
|
Daily
|
|
Fruit and Vegetables
|
5 portions per day
|
|
Poultry
|
Twice per week
|
|
Fish
|
Twice per week (One of which should be oily)
|
|
Supplementary Snack
|
Per evening
|
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Why is this idea important?
Originally, it was understood, patents were for the protection of inventors by infringement.
Why is technology of corporations, Gov't, always increasing, but not from the individuals.
If patent law were solely for protection, technology would not be imbalanced, and yet is.
The patent system is about control, regulated by laws, people foolishly believe protects.
The BP Petroleum catastrophe occurred due to legislation allowing a corporate exploitation.
Who funds Monsanto to obtain technology of genetic-engineering, or science cloning cows?
http://jahtruth.net/gmterm.htm
http://jahtruth.net/genet.htm
How do some corporations manage to expand via scientific-research specific for their needs?
Is there not one individual in this entire world that could not or has not produced much better.
Patents are a bigger business than infringement protection, and are about power and control.
All of these made-up laws, are not protecting, and allow exploitation, and technology control.
"The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law" –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.
EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.
Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.
Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.
Why is this idea important?
There has been a tendency by some people who have chosen a religious lifestyle to seek to opt out of affording respect for the rights and freedoms of certain others whilst demanding respect for their own rights and freedoms.
EU law does not allow the United Kingdom to deny groups rights because they deny the legitimacy of rights or liberty to others. However if we are to be consistent, people with non-religious philosophical beliefs (eg Humanists) should be allowed to opt of of those Christian laws that conflict with the sincerely, strongly held secular beliefs of a significant number of their adherents. Thus a Humanist would be entitled to avail themselves of active voluntary euthanasia and enter into a heterosexual civil partnership. Meanwhile Christian laws would only in future be applicable to those who have chosen a scripturally consistent, Christian lifestyle. Marriage should therefore be decoupled from faith.
Equally, if a Christian offering bed and breakfast wishes to decide on faith grounds who to admit, they should be allowed to do so subject to being theologically consistent. Thus whilst they may exclude homosexuals, they must also be required treat divorcees, adulterers, menstuating women and other unions that conflict with, say Leviticus, in exactly the same way, or risk prosecution for religious abuse. The abuse of religion to justify enforcing some beliefs whilst ignoring others that may be personally inconvenient to the holder of those beliefs has led to the moderate Christian majority being seen as complicit in discrimination and double standards, thus undermining Christian legitimacy.
Alternately there should be no special rights for those who have chosen a particular religious lifestyle and the law should apply equally to all and be faith neutral.
It's called "the law of unintended consequences"!
Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !
Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.
One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.
I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !
Why is this idea important?
It's called "the law of unintended consequences"!
Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !
Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.
One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.
I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !
Let Health professionals regulate themselves, I qualified as a physiotherapist in 2000 and had a career break from 2005 to 2010 to bring up my children. Because of this I lost my HPC registration and had to do a period of retraining to get back into physio and be re-registered. I think this is a good idea and essential to update one's skills after a period away from a profession. However I do object to the amount of money the HPC ask to re-register you then the registration fee on top of this. Health professionals do not need to be regulated by a third body and I think it should be up to their own professional body to regulate themselves (in this case the CSP- Chartered society of physiotherapy. ) I think we should do away with the Health Professions council altogether and let professionals be autonomous and responsible for themselves.
Why is this idea important?
Let Health professionals regulate themselves, I qualified as a physiotherapist in 2000 and had a career break from 2005 to 2010 to bring up my children. Because of this I lost my HPC registration and had to do a period of retraining to get back into physio and be re-registered. I think this is a good idea and essential to update one's skills after a period away from a profession. However I do object to the amount of money the HPC ask to re-register you then the registration fee on top of this. Health professionals do not need to be regulated by a third body and I think it should be up to their own professional body to regulate themselves (in this case the CSP- Chartered society of physiotherapy. ) I think we should do away with the Health Professions council altogether and let professionals be autonomous and responsible for themselves.
My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.
Why is this idea important?
My idea is to reduce the amount of time it takes for appealed cases to be reviewed. It takes up to 1 year for the person to be granted a visa this is too long. 3 to 6 months is more like it.
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
Why is this idea important?
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.
All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.
With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.
All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.
Why is this idea important?
As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.
All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.
With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.
All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.
Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.
There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.
If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside.
Why is this idea important?
Please remove all planning regulations on use of holiday homes whereby an owner can not "reside" in his home, but he can "occupy" it, i.e. he has to prove he has a permanent home somewhere else in order to use it. He can let it to holiday makers all year round if the site has a 12 month licence, but he is not allowed to live in it himself for 12 months. This is utter nonsense. Does it really matter who occupies/resides in it? It is there to be used. The excuses from councils are that these homes are not well insulated like bricks and mortar. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. If they are prepared to live in them, let them. Councils seem to enjoy the power they have over the people in respect of holiday homes and it should be stopped – it is against human rights. It also costs us a fortune paying councils to enforce it.
There are many holiday home sites all over the country with different licences allowing owners to use their mobile homes/pine lodges for 10, 11 or 12 months. A huge number of these homes are owned by elderly people enjoying their retirement years.
If these sites were to be given FULL RESIDENTIAL licences, a great many, elderly people especially, would sell their family homes and live permanently in their holiday homes, thus PROVIDING HOUSES for young families. The homes are there. They should be used, and we NEED TO USE THEM if we are to keep our countryside.
Give the public the right to buy 100 watt incandescent electric light bulbs. These have been banned by the EU in favour of fluourscents, but give a poor quality light. This causes eye strain, may lead to permanent eye damage, and some people compensate by turning on multiple lights or using secondary tungsten spot lights – this can increase electricity consumption.
The young need good lights for homework.
The elderly and middle aged often have some occular degradation, and require a sharp bright light to read small print on cooking instructions, medicines, etc.
By all means discourage use of high wattage bulbs – add a £1 environment tax – but don't outlaw them.
Why is this idea important?
Give the public the right to buy 100 watt incandescent electric light bulbs. These have been banned by the EU in favour of fluourscents, but give a poor quality light. This causes eye strain, may lead to permanent eye damage, and some people compensate by turning on multiple lights or using secondary tungsten spot lights – this can increase electricity consumption.
The young need good lights for homework.
The elderly and middle aged often have some occular degradation, and require a sharp bright light to read small print on cooking instructions, medicines, etc.
By all means discourage use of high wattage bulbs – add a £1 environment tax – but don't outlaw them.
so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is
Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis
Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.
Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.
The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.
He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.
The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.
The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.
"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."
The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.
Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.
The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.
A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.
"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."
Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.
So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.
source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs
Why is this idea important?
so that's it finally we got the answer and here it is
Drugalysers to be issued over the next two years to detect drugs such as cocaine and cannabis
Testing kits designed to catch motorists driving while under the influence of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, and ecstasy are to be issued to police over the next two years, the government announced today.
Ministers are due to give details of research funding to develop "drugalysers" which will be initially used in police stations, but later for roadside testing.
The plan follows a review by Sir Peter North, who in June called for tougher drug driving laws and the development of a roadside saliva test for those suspected of driving after taking drugs.
He called for screening devices to be available in police stations within two years to test for drugs including amphetamines, methadone, ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis and heroin.
The testing kits will mean that police officers no longer have to wait for permission from a doctor before a blood test can be taken to be used as evidence in court.
The road safety minister, Mike Penning, said: "This equipment will make it easier for the police to prosecute the irresponsible minority who put the lives of the law-abiding majority at risk.
"We are taking urgent steps to make drug screening technology available as soon as possible."
The Home Office expects to issue manufacturers with a final draft specification by the end of September.
Along with the Department for Transport and the Technology Strategy Board, it also announced a £300,000 investment for further research into drug-testing technology.
The aim is to develop equipment that can test for a wider range of drugs and is suitable for roadside testing.
A Home Office spokesman said: "Motorists who drive while under the influence of drugs are a menace to the roads and we have already given the police powers to test drivers for signs of impairment.
"We also want them to be able to test drivers for drugs in their system. By the end of September we aim to have issued a final draft specification for a testing device, setting out the drugs we want to detect. As soon as manufacturers have produced devices that satisfy our specification, we will approve them for police to use."
Research shows that 10% of drivers aged between 18 and 29 have admitted driving after taking illegal drugs.
So far, no device that meets the Home Office and Department for Transport's requirements has been identified.
source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-testing-kits-drivers-drugs